Judgment B.R. Sarangi, J. The Teachers Association of Berhampur University, Petitioner No. 1 & its members, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 51, have filed O.J.C. No. 11949 of 1999 challenging the action of the Opp. Parties in not determining & paying the pensionary benefit by taking the entire length of service up to age of 60 years into consideration & also challenging the vires of Statute 291 of the Orissa University First Statute, 1990 on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. O.J.C. No. 3421 of 2000 has been filed by some of the retired employees of Berhampur University seeking similar relief like that in O.J.C. No. 11949 of 1999. In W.P.(C) No. 129 of 2007 the Berhampur University Teachers' Association, represented through its Secretary, is also claiming the same benefit. 2. Since common question of law as to whether the Petitioners are entitled to get the pensionary benefits on attaining the age of 60 years or 58 years in consonance with the provisions contained in Statute 291 of Orissa University First Statute, 1990 is involved in all these Writ Petitions, they were heard together & are disposed of by this common Judgment. 3. Berhampur University was established under Section 22 of the Berhampur University Act, 1966, Berhampur University Statute 1966 was framed, which provides the manner of recruitment of various teachers & employees of the University & their conditions of services. Under Rule 237-A (1) of Berhampur University Statute, the date of retirement of an employee was mentioned to be at the age of 60 years. On superannuation, the entitlement of an employee was provided under Rule 237(AAA), which is as follows:- "Every employee of the University other than Vice-Chancellor, shall be entitled either to the benefit of the contributory Provident Fund Scheme provided under the chapter (herein after referred to as the C.P.F. Scheme) or to the benefit of the pension scheme applicable to the State Govt. servant from time to time as he may opt under this chapter." 4. The above Rule, inter alia, provides that rate of pension under the pension scheme shall be same as provided in Orissa Pension Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time with temporary increase. The Orissa Pension Rules, 1977 has been replaced by Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, which has come into force with effect from 9.3.1992. 5. The above Rule, inter alia, provides that rate of pension under the pension scheme shall be same as provided in Orissa Pension Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time with temporary increase. The Orissa Pension Rules, 1977 has been replaced by Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, which has come into force with effect from 9.3.1992. 5. While the conditions of services of employees of different Universities were governed under their respective Universities Act & Statute, the Orissa University Act, 1989 came into force & all such Universities including Berhampur University were deemed to have been established under Section 3 of the Orissa University Act, 1989. Under Section 24(3) of the Orissa University Act, 1989, the Orissa Universities First Statute. 1990 was enacted by the State Government. Under Section 33 of the said Act, Berhampur University Act, 1966 & the Act made for the other Universities were repealed, but at the same time under Section 33(2)(a), it was made clear that notwithstanding such repeal, the authorities constituted, officers, teachers & other employees appointed, notifications issued including the notification for appointment of administrator, orders made, action taken, things done or contracts entered into under the said Act or the Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been constituted, appointed, issued, made, taken, done or entered into under this Act. Clause (d) of Section 33 provides that Statute & Regulations made under the said Act or ordinance shall in so far as they are not in consistent with this Act, be deemed to have been made under this Act & shall continue in force until new provisions are made under this Act. 6. Consequent upon enactment of Orissa University Act, 1989, under Section 24(3) of the said Act, Orissa Universities First Statute, 1990 came into force with effect from 1.1.1990, which was made applicable to the employees of all the Universities established within Orissa & on coming into force of this Statute, Berhampur University Statute, 1966 was repealed. Statute 268 of Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 provides that the date of retirement of an University employee is the crate on which the employee attained the age of 60 years. Under Rule 237-A(1) of the Berhampur University Statute, 1966, the date of retirement was similarly mentioned to be at the age of 60 years. Statute 268 of Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 provides that the date of retirement of an University employee is the crate on which the employee attained the age of 60 years. Under Rule 237-A(1) of the Berhampur University Statute, 1966, the date of retirement was similarly mentioned to be at the age of 60 years. Therefore, so far as the date of retirement of an employee of Berhampur University is concerned, there is no ambiguity or inconsistency between Berhampur University Statute, 1966 (repealed) vis-a-vis Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990. 7. The employees of Berhampur University including the teaching staff get superannuated at the age of 60 years but their pensionary & other retiral benefits are not computed taking into consideration the entire length of service up to 60 years. But the same is done taking into consideration the period up to the age of 58 years, meaning thereby the period of service from 58 years to 60 years has been ignored for the purpose of computation of pensionary & retiral benefits though effectively they are rendering service till they attain the age of 60 years. 8. Statute 290 of Orissa Universities First Statute, 1990, prescribes the modalities for payment of pension & gratuity of the employees of the University, which is as follows: "290(1) Subject to Sub-Statute (3) infra, the employees of the University who opt for pension Scheme shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits including family pension as provided under Orissa Pension Rules, if any, as admissible from time to time. (2) Subject to Sub-Statute (3) infra, the employees shall also be entitled to gratuity including Death Gratuity of the same rates & subject to the same terms & conditions as applicable from time to time to the State Govt. employees. (3) In the case of existing employee opting or deemed to have opted for the pension scheme the amount contributed by the University to their contributory Provident Fund together with interest accrued thereon till the date of their exercising option shall be credited to the pension fund of the University. employees. (3) In the case of existing employee opting or deemed to have opted for the pension scheme the amount contributed by the University to their contributory Provident Fund together with interest accrued thereon till the date of their exercising option shall be credited to the pension fund of the University. (4) The employees under the Pension Scheme shall subscribe to the General Provident Fund Account which shall be opened & operated in accordance with the provisions contained in the Provident Fund Act & the Orissa General Provident Fund Rules." Rule 291 of the First Statute also reads as follows: "Notwithstanding the age of superannuation, the period of qualifying service of employees other than the Class IV employees upto the time when they complete 58 years of age shall be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of their pension. Family pension & Gratuity. In the case of Class IV employees the period of service up to the age of superannuation shall be reckoned for the purpose." 9. It appears from Statute 291 of the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 that the pension & gratuity of the employees of the Universities other than Class-IV employees are calculated by taking into consideration 58 years of age as the period of qualifying service although the age of superannuation is fixed at the age of 60 years. By application of this provision, the teaching staff of Berhampur University comes under the other category of employees. Therefore, their pensionary benefits are to be calculated taking into consideration 58 years of age as the period of qualifying service although their age of superannuation is fixed at the age of 60 years. The Petitioners state that there cannot be two dates one for retirement & the other for calculating the retirement benefits. It is stated that ignoring two years of service, i.e. from 58 years to 60 years for the purpose of pension & other benefits is unconstitutional & ultra vires Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner asserts that by operation of Statute 291 of Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990, the rights & privileges of the teaching staff of the University to get their pension & other retrial benefits in terms of actual period of service rendered by them cannot be taken away. The Petitioner asserts that by operation of Statute 291 of Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990, the rights & privileges of the teaching staff of the University to get their pension & other retrial benefits in terms of actual period of service rendered by them cannot be taken away. Further, Statute 343 of the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 protects such interest of the employees of the University, which provides as follows: "Nothing in this statute shall operate either to deprive any person of any right or privilege to which he is entitled to or under any law or by the terms of any contract or Agreement subsisting between such persons & the University & to confer on him any right or privilege in respect of any matter for which specific provision is made by terms of any contract or agreement between himself & the University." As it appears from the above mentioned provision, the benefit conferred by the said Statute for determining pension by taking into consideration actual length of service, cannot be, curtailed by operation of Rule 291 as well as Rule 293(1) & (3) of Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990. The Berhampur University Statute, 1966, which was governing the field till 01.01.1990 confers a right to get pensionary & other benefits by computing the actual length of qualifying service. Such rights which have already been accrued in favour of the employees cannot be curtailed by enactment of Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990. If so, it would amount to arbitrary & unreasonable exercise of power by the authorities & violate Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Berhampur University passed a resolution bearing No. 80 dated 28.3.1998 requesting the Government regarding payment of the terminal benefits/pensionary benefits for the entire length of service up to the age of 60 years. Though the resolution of the syndicate dated 28.3.1998 & the representation of the teaching staff dated 18.2.1999 were transmitted to Opp. Party No.1, no action has been taken & in the meantime many of the teaching staffs of the University got retired & they have been deprived of their legitimate claim of pensionary/retirement benefits admissible to them in conformity with their terms of appointment as per Berhampur University Statute, 1966. Party No.1, no action has been taken & in the meantime many of the teaching staffs of the University got retired & they have been deprived of their legitimate claim of pensionary/retirement benefits admissible to them in conformity with their terms of appointment as per Berhampur University Statute, 1966. Since an accrued right of the teaching staff of Berhampur University has been taken away by virtue of the enactment of Statute 291 for extending the pension & other retirement benefits, grievance was made to the Opp. Parties to compute the actual length of service for extension of such benefits on 18.2.1999. At this point of time, the Petitioners filed the writ applications assailing the vires of the provisions contained in Statute 291 of the Orissa Universities First Statute, 1990. 11. When the matter was pending for consideration, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (6) of Section 24 of the Orissa Universities Act, 1989 & in consultation with the State Government, the Chancellor has been pleased to allow the amendment to be made in the Orissa Universities First Statute, 1990 called "Odisha Universities (Amendment) Statutes, 2012". Clause 26 of the said Amendment Statute reads thus: "26. In the said statutes, for statute 291, the following shall be substituted, namely: "The period of qualifying service of employees reckoned up to the age of their superannuation shall be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of their pension, family pension & gratuity." 12. By virtue of the aforesaid amending provision, the period of qualifying service of the employees is to be reckoned up to the age of their superannuation, i.e., 60 years, which shall be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of their family pension & gratuity. Therefore, the anomaly which was created by the previous Statute 291 has been mitigated by virtue of the amended provision of Statute 291 & now there shall be one date of superannuation, i.e., at the age of 60 years & the same should be taken into consideration for determination of quantum of family pension & gratuity. 13. Mr. H.M. Dhal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in OJC Nos. 11949 of 1999 & 3421 of 2000 & Mr. 13. Mr. H.M. Dhal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in OJC Nos. 11949 of 1999 & 3421 of 2000 & Mr. P.K. Jena, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 129 of 2007 state that by virtue of the amended provision of Statute 291, they are not pressing for consideration of vires of the erstwhile provision of Statute 291 or the amended provision of Statute 291 & confining their prayer that since by virtue of the amendment of Statute 291, the relief sought for has already been granted, this Court has to take into consideration whether such benefit can be granted from retrospective effect or what should be the effect of the substituted provision of the Amendment Act. To substantiate their contention, they have relied upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana & ors, AIR 2004 SC 5100 & Government of India & ors v. Indian Tobacco Association, (2005)7 SCC 396 . 14. Mr. B.S. Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for Berhampur University with reference to the counter affidavit though has admitted that Berhampur University was constituted under the Berhampur University Act, 1966 & the service conditions of the Petitioners were regulated under the Berhampur University Statute, 1966, which came into force with effect from 1.1.1967 & 2.1.1967 respectively, granting pensionary benefits on attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years, but by virtue of enactment of Statute 291, pensionary benefit has been computed on attaining the age of 60 years though the employees were to be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. It is admitted that the University has also passed a resolution on 28.3.1998 requesting either to repeal or amend Statute 291 suitably for counting the period of service till the date of superannuation of each employee of the University as qualifying service till. It is stated that consequent upon implementation of Orissa Universities First Statute, 1990 & the provisions contained therein like Statutes 268, 290 & 291, which determine the age of superannuation & terminal benefits of the employees of Berhampur University repealing the earlier provisions as laid down in the Act, 1966 & 1989. Section 24(2) of the Orissa University Act, 1989 provides that in relation to matters not provided for in the statute the corresponding Rules if any of the State Government may mutatis mutandis apply to the University. Section 24(2) of the Orissa University Act, 1989 provides that in relation to matters not provided for in the statute the corresponding Rules if any of the State Government may mutatis mutandis apply to the University. It is stated that the age of retirement required under Statute 268 is one aspect & determination of pensionary benefits & terminal pension of an employee is a different aspect, which were governed under the provisions stipulated in Statute 291. Therefore, extending such benefits up to the age of 60 years as claimed by the Petitioners would be sustained unless otherwise the said provision is amended by the competent authority. 15. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State but on the other hand Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate supports the stand taken by the University. 16. The aforesaid being the pleadings available on record, now it is to be considered whether the amendment of Statute 291 by virtue of Amendment Act, 2012 which has been substituted has got its prospective or retrospective application. 17. As it appears, by virtue of the amendment to Orissa Universities (Amendment) Act, 2012, under clause 26, Statute 291 has been amended by substituting that the period of qualifying service of employees reckoned up to the age of their superannuation shall be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of their pension, family pension & gratuity. The earlier Statute 291 of the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 has been "substituted" by virtue of Orissa Universities (Amendment) Act, 2012. 18. The Apex Court while considering the case of Zile Singh (supra) has taken into account the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter, "the Principal Act", for short) which is a State enactment dealing with local self-government through the municipalities. Chapter III of the said Act deals with composition of municipalities. The Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 3 of 1994) inserted Section 13A in Chapter III of the Principal Act mentioning disqualification for membership, which states that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as & for being a member of a municipality if he has more than two living children provided that a person having more than two children on or after the expiry of one year of the commencement of this Act, shall not be deemed to be disqualified. The said amendment Act was under challenge before the Apex Court on the ground that whether the provision so amended has got retrospective-operation & if not, whether the provision as amended by the Second Amendment applies. Considering such contention, the Apex Court in paras 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 states as follows: "13 It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statue is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only 'nova constitution futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis' a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. (See: Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, Ninth Edition, 2004 at p. 438). It is not necessary that an express provision be made to make a statute retrospective & the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the community as a whole (ibid, p.440). 14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect (ibid, - pp.468). 15. Though retrospectivity is not be presumed & rather there is presumption against retrospectivity, according to Craies (Statute Law, Seventh Edition), it is open for the legislature to enact laws having retrospective operation. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect (ibid, - pp.468). 15. Though retrospectivity is not be presumed & rather there is presumption against retrospectivity, according to Craies (Statute Law, Seventh Edition), it is open for the legislature to enact laws having retrospective operation. This can be achieved by express enactment or by necessary implication from the language employed. If it is a necessary implication from the language employed that the legislature intended a particular Section to have a retrospective operation, the Courts will give it such an operation. In the absence of a retrospective operation having been expressly given, the Courts may be called upon to construe the provisions & answer the question whether the legislature had sufficient expressed that intention giving the Statute retrospectivity. Four factors are suggested as relevant: (i) general scope & purview of the statute; (ii) the remedy sought to be applied; (iii) the former state of the law; & (iv) what it was the legislature contemplated (p.388). The rule against retrospectivity does not extend to protect from the effect of a repeal a privilege which did not amount to accrued right (p.392). 16. Where a statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute or to explain' a former 'statute, the subsequent statute has relation back to the time when the prior Act was passed. The rule against retrospectivity is inapplicable to such legislations as are explanatory & declaratory in nature. The classic illustration is the case of Att. Gen. v. Pougett ([,, 1816] 2 Price 381, 392). By a Customs Act of 1873 (53 Geo. 3, c. 33) a duty was imposed upon hides of 9s. 4d., but the Act omitted to state that it was to be 9s. 4d. per cwt., & to remedy this omission another Customs Act (53 Geo. 3, c. 105) was passed later in the same year. Between the passing of these two Acts some hides were exported, & it was contended that they were not liable to pay the duty of 9s. 4d. 4d. per cwt., & to remedy this omission another Customs Act (53 Geo. 3, c. 105) was passed later in the same year. Between the passing of these two Acts some hides were exported, & it was contended that they were not liable to pay the duty of 9s. 4d. per cwt., but Thomson C.B., in giving Judgment for the Attorney General, said" "The duty in this instance was in fact imposed by the first Act, but the gross mistake of the omission of the weight for which the sum expressed was to have been payable occasioned the amendment made by the subsequent Act, but that had reference to the former statute as soon as it passed, & they must be taken together as if they were one & the same Act." (p.395). 17. Maxwell states in his work on Interpretation of Statutes, (Twelfth Edition) that the rule against retrospective operation is a presumption only, & as such it "may be overcome, not only by express words in the Act but also by circumstances sufficiently strong to displace it" (p.225). If the dominant intention of the legislature can be clearly & doubtlessly spelt out, the inhibition contained in the rule against perpetuity becomes of doubtful applicability as the "inhibition of the rule" is a matter of degree which would "vary secundum materiam" (p.226). Sometimes, where the sense of the statute demands it or where there has been an obvious mistake in drafting a Court will be prepared to substitute another word or phrase for that which actually appears in the text of the Act (p.231)." 19. The Apex Court in the said Judgment in paras 23 to 25 held as follows: "23. The text of Section 2 of the Second Amendment Act provides for the word "upto" being substituted for the word "after". What is the meaning & effect of the expression employed therein "shall be substituted". "24. The substitution of one text for the other pre-existing text is one of the known & well-recognised practices employed in legislative drafting. Substitution has to be distinguished from 'supersession' or a mere repeal of an existing provision." "25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision & its replacement by the new provision (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, ibid, p. 565). Substitution has to be distinguished from 'supersession' or a mere repeal of an existing provision." "25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision & its replacement by the new provision (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, ibid, p. 565). If any authority is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 645 , State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal Pindwal, (1996) 5 SCC 60 , Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co., (1969) 1 SCC 255 & A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. S. Michael & ors., AIR 1963 SC 933 . In West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & Ors. case (supra) a three Judge Bench of this Court held that the State Government by substituting tile new rule in place of the old one never intended to keep alive the old rule. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centering around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule & making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal's case (supra) this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist & held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar's case (supra) a three Judge Bench of this Court emphasized the distinction between 'supersession' of a rule & 'substitution' of a rule & held that the process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist &, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place." 20. In Indian Tobacco Association (supra), the Apex Court has considered the meaning of "substitute" in paras 15, 23 & 25, which is as follows: "15. The word "substitute" ordinarily would mean "to put (one) in place of another"; or "to replace". In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., at p.1281, the word "substitute" has been defined to mean "to put in the place of another person or thing", or "to exchange". The word "substitute" ordinarily would mean "to put (one) in place of another"; or "to replace". In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., at p.1281, the word "substitute" has been defined to mean "to put in the place of another person or thing", or "to exchange". In Collins English Dictionary, the word "substitute" has been defined to mean "to serve or cause to serve in place of (another atom or group)" or "a person or thing that serves in place of another, such as a prayer in a game who takes the place of an injured colleague. 23. If the Central Government intended to extend the benefit to the members of the Respondent Association only with prospective effect, it could have said so explicitly. Such a benefit could also have been extended by taking recourse to the proviso appended to sub-clause (iv) of clause (2) of the notification dated 7.4.1997. It may, therefore, be safely concluded that by reason of the amended notification, the Central government only intended to rectify a mistake &, thus, the same will have retrospective effect & retroactive operation. 25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision & its replacement by the new provision (see Principles of Statutory Interpretation, ibid., p.565). If any authority is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P.6, State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal7, Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co.8 & A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. S. Michael9. In West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. case6 a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the State Government by substituting the new rule in place of the old one never intended to keep alive the old rule. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centering around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule & making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case7 this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist & held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Mangilal Pindwal case7 this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist & held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar case8 a three Judge Bench of this Court emphasised the distinction between supersession' of a rule& 'substitution' of a rule & held that the process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist &, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. 21. The effect of substituted provision has also been considered by the Apex Court in Ramkanali Colliery of BCCL v. Workmen, (2001) 4 SCC 236 , as follows: "What we are concerned with in the present case is the effect of the expression 'substituted' used in the context of deletion of, sub-Sections of Section 14, as was originally enacted. In Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India, 1988 Supp SCC 30: 1988 SCC (L&C) 404 the Supreme Court stated that it is a matter of legislative practice to provide while enacting an amending law, that an existing provision shall be deleted & a new provision substituted. If there is both repeal & introduction of another provision in place thereof by a single exercise, the expression "substituted" is used. Such deletion was the effect of the repeal of the existing provision & also provides for introduction of a new provision. In our view there is thus no real distinction between repeal & amendment or substitution in such cases. If that aspect is borne in mind, we have to apply the usual principles of finding out the rights of the parties flowing from an amendment of a provision. If there is a vested right & that right is to be taken away, necessarily the law will have to be retrospective in effect & if such a law retrospectively takes away such a right, it can no longer be contended that the right should be enforced." 22. By virtue of amendment of Statute 291 by Amendment Act, 2012, the mistake which has been crept in the earlier Statute has been rectified. By virtue of amendment of Statute 291 by Amendment Act, 2012, the mistake which has been crept in the earlier Statute has been rectified. Therefore, the effect of the present amendment of Statute 291 has to be retrospective & the benefit has to be computed retrospectively computing the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years. 23. Considering the fact from other angle, the employees of Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology had made identical grievance in O.J.C. No. 9211 of 1993 disposed of on 28.3.1997 (Krupasindhu Rout v. Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology) & this Court has held as follows: "We, therefore, dispose of the application with a direction to Opp. Party to notionally add two more years to his qualifying service & calculate his pension on the basis that he/she superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years & taking into account the pay he would have got had he continued till completion of 60 years of age. The Opp. Party is directed to pass appropriate orders & extend the benefits in terms of the direction given above within three months from the date of receipt of this order." 24. this Court has also considered similar question in Damodar Rath v. Utkal University, OJC No. 1512 of 1990 disposed of on 31.3.1993 as well as in Basanta Kumar Ray v. Vice Chancellor, Utkal University, OJC No. 6815 of 1994 disposed of on 12.5.1990 & taking into consideration various provisions of the then Utkal University Act & Rules, & the subsequent provisions of the Orissa University Act, directed the authorities to revise & recompute the pension payable to the Petitioners of those cases by taking their entire length of service up to the age of 60 years into consideration. 25. Considering the above proposition of law & applying the same to the present facts of the case, this. Court is of the opinion that there is no justification on the part of the Opp. Parties to deprive the Petitioners of getting their pension on the basis of the entire length of service rendered up to the age of 60 years. 26. In the result, the writ applications succeed & the Opp. Court is of the opinion that there is no justification on the part of the Opp. Parties to deprive the Petitioners of getting their pension on the basis of the entire length of service rendered up to the age of 60 years. 26. In the result, the writ applications succeed & the Opp. Parties are directed to revise & recompute the pension payable to the Petitioners taking their entire length of service up to the age of 60 years into consideration within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ. The arrears of the Petitioners will also be paid by the Opp. Parties within the same period. No cost.