JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - As common issues of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, accordingly they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Respondents are employees of the petitionerCorporation, who were serving in its Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur. It is not in dispute that all the respondents superannuated between 1st April, 1999 and 2nd December, 2004. 3. Vide Notification dated 29th October, 1999, the State of Himachal Pradesh introduced a Corporate Sector Employees Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ''the 1999 Pension Scheme''). As per the said 1999 Pension Scheme, all employees of the Corporate Sector Companies like the petitionerCorporation were to be covered under it, which was deemed to have come into force on 1st April, 1999. Though the Scheme called upon an employee to exercise option to be covered under the same, however, it also contemplated that in case no such option was exercised by an employee, then it would be deemed that the employee was to be covered by the Scheme. 4. This Pension Scheme was withdrawn by the State vide Notification dated 2nd December, 2004, relevant text whereof reads as under: "The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to repeal Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Famil Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity Scheme 1999 notified vide Government of Himachal Pradesh (FinIF & Pes) notification of even No. dated 29/10/1999 with immediate effect. Notwithstanding such repeal, the employees of Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector, who retired from services w.e.f. 1/4/1999 to the date of publication of this notification, shall continue to be governed under the provisions of the scheme so repealed; provided such retired employees have opted for such scheme and have otherwise become eligible for pension under the scheme. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is further pleased to order that the respective Corporations/Boards shall be the pension sanctioning/disbursing authorities for such retirees referred to in the preceding para and their employer share of C.P.F. including interest thereon shall be transferred to respective Corporations/Board and they shall form a pension fund. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is further pleased to order that consequent upon the repeal of the aforesaid scheme, other employees shall continue to be governed under provisions which were applicable to them as on 31/3/1999." 5. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh is further pleased to order that consequent upon the repeal of the aforesaid scheme, other employees shall continue to be governed under provisions which were applicable to them as on 31/3/1999." 5. Those employees who superannuated after withdrawal of the Scheme, assailed the said Notification by way of CWP No. 1577 of 2009, titled as Rajesh Chander Sood Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters. 6. Whereas, writ petitions filed by such like employees were allowed by this Court, however, Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Rajesh Chander Sood and others , (2016) 10 SCC 77 while setting aside the judgment of this Court, upheld the withdrawal of the said Notification by the State Government. 7. On the other hand, as employees of the Corporate Sector Companies, including the petitioner Corporation who had superannuated between 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004 were not being given pensionary benefits, they also approached this Court for grant of pension. One of such petition was CWP No. 4998 of 2010, titled as Bimla Sood Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was decided on 04.01.2011. Said judgment was upheld in an intra Court appeal in LPA No. 346 of 2011, titled as H.P. State Forest development Corporation Vs. Smt. Bimla Sood and others, decided on 24th May, 2012 and said decision was affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court vide order dated 01.07.2013 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 25390/2012, titled as H.P. State Forest Devt. Corp. Vs. Bimla Sood & Ors. 8. Respondents before this Court, who were employees of Forest Corporation and engaged as such in its Rosion & Turpentine Factory, approached the learned Tribunal for issuance of direction to grant pension to them as per the 1999 Scheme, which Original Applications of their were allowed by the learned Tribunal. As despite the said adjudication, pension was not being paid to them, they filed Execution Petitions and one of such Execution Petition No. 9 of 2015, titled as Sh. Mast Ram and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh filed in OA No. 608 of 2015 was disposed of in the following terms: "Replies stand filed. Rejoinder to the reply of respondents No. 3 and 4 has also been filed. No rejoinder is intended to be filed to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. Mast Ram and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh filed in OA No. 608 of 2015 was disposed of in the following terms: "Replies stand filed. Rejoinder to the reply of respondents No. 3 and 4 has also been filed. No rejoinder is intended to be filed to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. In view of the statement at the Bar made by Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, learned standing counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 (Forest Corporation) that the Corporation is presently facing financial crunch, which position is likely to ease out in the near future and it shall start paying monthly pension to the applicants on and with effect from 01.04.2016 regularly and arrears of pension due uptill 31.3.2016 shal also be paid in three equal installments by the end of June, September and December, 2016, the Execution Petition is disposed of accordingly by taking the statement of the learned standing counsel on record. 3. The Execution Petition stands disposed of in the above terms." 9. It is thereafter that Miscellaneous Applications were filed in disposed of Execution Petitions by the petitionerCorporation, wherein inter alia, it was urged that the present respondents were not entitled for grant of pension under the 1999 Pension Scheme primarily on the ground that though they were employees of the respondentCorporation, but as they were serving in Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur, therefore, they were not covered under the Scheme. Said applications stand dismissed by the learned Tribunal and feeling aggrieved, the petitionerCorporation has filed these petitions. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerCorporation has primarily argued that the respondents are not entitled for grant of pension though they did superannuate between 01.04.1999 and 02.12.2004, for the reason that they were not serving in the petitionerCorporation per se, but were engaged in its Rosin & Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur. As per learned Senior Counsel, the protection granted by Notification dated 2nd December, 2004, vide which the 1999 Scheme was withdrawn, did not cover the respondents. No other point was urged. 11. As per learned Senior Counsel, the protection granted by Notification dated 2nd December, 2004, vide which the 1999 Scheme was withdrawn, did not cover the respondents. No other point was urged. 11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has argued that once the Original Applications filed by the respondents stood allowed and Execution Petitions filed for implementation of the Orders passed by the learned Tribunal also stood disposed of in terms already referred to hereinabove, then neither Miscellaneous Applications, that too in a disposed of Execution Petitions were maintainable, nor the petitionerCorporation can be allowed to deny pensionary benefits to the respondents on the grounds, which are being agitated before this Court, as the Corporation intends to create a fictional classification between its own employees, i.e., between employees who were serving in the office(s) of the Corporation and those engaged in the Factory owned by it, which is not permissible in law. 12. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the Orders impugned as also the record. 13. It is not in dispute that the respondents retired between 1st April,1999 and 2nd December, 2004. The text of the Notification dated 2nd December, 2004 has already been quoted hereinabove. Said Notification clearly contemplated that employees of Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector, who retired from service w.e.f. 01.04.1999 to the date of publication of Notification dated 2nd December, 2004 shall continue to be governed under the provisions of the Scheme so repealed, provided such employees have opted for the Scheme and had otherwise become eligible for pension under the Scheme. 14. Clause 2(2) of Notification dated 29th October, 1999 provided as under: "(2) All employees of the H.P. Corporate Sector shall have to give an option in writing in the form appended as AnnexureII to this scheme within a period of thirty days from the date of notification of this Scheme either he/she is to be governed under the existing statutory provisions or to be governed under this scheme. Any employee who does not exercise his/her option within the specified period for whatsoever reasons shall be deemed to have exercised option for this scheme." Therefore, it is apparent from above that any employee who did not exercise his/her option, was to be deemed to have exercised option for this Scheme and this deemed fiction was mandatory, as the word used in this subclause is "shall". None of the respondents had expressly opted out of the Scheme. 15. It is also not in dispute that employees of the petitionerCorporation serving in its various offices, who had superannuated between the above referred dates were also initially not granted pensionary benefits and it was by way of judicial pronouncements in their favour that said employees were granted pension. As respondents before this Court were still not being paid the pensionary benefits, they also approached learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and their Original Applications were disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Bimla Sood''s case (supra), subject to the verification that original applicants were similarly situated as Bimla Sood (supra). The Orders so passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Applications filed by the present respondents were not assailed by the petitioner. When despite the Orders passed by the learned Tribunal pensionary benefits were not extended to the respondents, they filed Execution Petitions and Order passed in one of such like Execution Petitions has already been quoted by us hereinabove. 16. It is only thereafter that the Forest Corporation filed Miscellaneous applications in the said decided Execution Petitions, wherein a prayer was made on behalf of the Corporation that the present respondents were not entitled for the relief granted to them by the Tribunal, which stand rejected by the learned Tribunal. 17. We fail to understand that in the absence of there being any challenge to the Orders passed in the Original Applications filed by the respondents, how such applications were maintainable in disposed of Execution Petitions. Be that as it may, we need not dwell any further on this issue, as learned Tribunal even otherwise has dismissed the said Miscellaneous Applications. 18. Coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in our considered view, the same is bereft of any merit. It is not in dispute that respondents were employees of the Forest Corporation. 18. Coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in our considered view, the same is bereft of any merit. It is not in dispute that respondents were employees of the Forest Corporation. It is also not in dispute that those employees of the Forest Corporation, who were similarly situated as the respondents, but were serving in various offices of the respondentCorporation, are being paid pension as per the 1999 Pension Scheme by the Forest Corporation. Now, the only plea forwarded for denying the same to the respondents is that they cannot claim parity with those persons who are being paid pension because respondents were working in a Factory of the petitionerCorporation and not in the offices of the Corporation. 19. Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes at arbitrariness. It permits classification, provided that the classification is based on intelligible differentia and said intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object to be achieved. In this case, respondents though were serving in a Factory of the petitionerCorporation, yet they were employees of the petitionerCorporation. Simply because they were engaged in a Factory owned by the petitionerCorporation, they cannot be discriminated vizaviz those employees who were serving in various offices of the petitionerCorporation in the matter of pension. In our considered view, the classification, which is being carved out by the petitionerCorporation between employees serving in offices and employees serving in Factory, is not based on any intelligible differentia, because an employee is an employee irrespective of the fact whether he is working in any of the establishment of the employer. Not only this, said classification otherwise also has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which in the present case is grant of pension to an employee who superannuated between 01.04.1999 and 02.12.2004. According to us, the rationale/reason adopted by the petitionerCorporation to justify its act to deny pension to the respondents is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is not sustainable in law. Reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerCorporation on the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerCorporation on the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Rajesh Chander Sood and others , (2016) 10 SCC 77 is also of no assistance to the Corporation, because that judgment has not been delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a lis between the Corporation and an employee who superannuated between 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004. Said judgment has been delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a lis between those employees of the Corporation, who admittedly superannuated after the rescinding of the 1999 Pension Scheme. On the other hand, in case of employees similarly situated as the respondents, i.e., an employee who superannuated between 01.04.1999 and 02.12.2004, his/her right to claim pension from the petitionerCorporation has already been upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bimla Sood''s case (supra). 20. In view of the reasonings assigned hereinabove, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.