JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - Both the counsel agree that the issue involved in the present petition has already been concluded by the Judgment passed by this court in SBCW Pet. No.17616/20017 (Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma and ors. v. Chairman Central Board of Trust and ors.) decided on 11.12.2018. The present petitioners are retired employees of Khetri Copper which is also one of the Units of Government of India and taking into consideration that this court has in the aforesaid order held as under: "22. It is also noticed that the Provident Fund Department, in these review petitions, itself has admitted of having released the amount in faour of 1175 pensioners upto 30.6.2017, hence no distinction can be drawn between the contributors to the Pension Scheme. 23. Thus viewed, the action of the respondents in denying the benefit to the pensioners who are members of the Pension Scheme, is held to be unustified. While reiterating the order passed by this court earlier, the petitioners are granted liberty to submit option before the Provident Fund Commissioner under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme and the Provident Fund Commissioner shall thereafter obtain the amount from the respective PF Trust as per the said ratio of 8.55% and thereafter release all consequential benefits accordingly in terms of and as directed by the Apex Court hereinabove. 24. All the petitioners would have to submit an application for seeking of an option for receiving pension on the full salary and only after their depositing the PF amount which they have received from their concerned trust to the extent of 8.33% and the benefit of this judgment would be subject to their depositing the amount already received by them from PF Account of the PF Trust. Upon their depositing the said amount of 8.33% as calculated by the PF Trust, the PF Trust shall accordingly transfer the same to the EPFO Pension Fund and the pension shall accordingly be calculated and released. The exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months. 25. One other argument has been raised by learned counsel in relation to the existing employees i.e. those who are still in service and have not retired. The exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months. 25. One other argument has been raised by learned counsel in relation to the existing employees i.e. those who are still in service and have not retired. It is submitted that proviso to clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme was deleted vide notification dated 22/8/2014 w.e.f. 01/09/2014 and therefore, the benefit of proviso cannot be extended to any employee after 01/09/2014 if he had not exercised the option earlier. In the opinion of this court, such a notification will not apply in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of R.C.Gupta & ors. (supra). It is also noted that the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala vide4 its judgment dated 12/10/2018 has also set aside the Employees Pension Amendment Sche, 2014 issued vide notification dated 22/08/2014 whereby the aforesaid proviso was deleted. Even otherwise, the same could not have been applied to the existing employees who are already members of the Scheme and could only apply if at all to employees who become members of the Scheme after 2014 notification. In view thereof, the benefit of this judgment would also be applicable to the existing employees who are yet to retire. 26. With the aforesaid observations/directions, all these writ petitions stands allowed and the review petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. 27. The aforesaid judgment would also cover the present case in the same terms. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed. 2. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed.