JUDGMENT : 1. The Court: The petitioner no. 1 is a registered society whose members are ex-officers of Balmer Lawrie and Company Limited (the company, for short), i.e., the respondent no. 1. The petitioner no. 2 is the Secretary of the petitioner no. 1. 2. The case of the petitioners is that in the year 1989 the company introduced a scheme for superannuation to protect its salaried officers by providing pension to them with effect from 1988 on their attainment the age of superannuation. It is stated that the basic feature of the said scheme was that the respondents had guaranteed pensions to its retired officers at the rates mentioned therein at least for 15 years after their retirement. In the year 2000 and 2002 the company introduced a voluntary retirement scheme by which all the members of the petitioners were retired from the service of the respondent no. 1. At that time they were specifically assured that pension would be disbursed at the appropriate rate as mentioned in the Superannuation Scheme from the notional date of retirement of the respective officers. 3. On January 12, 2004, the petitioners had received an open letter from the Trustees of the Company i.e., the respondent no. 3 inter alia informing that due to grave financial condition the Managing Director of the Company i.e. the respondent no. 2 upon consultation with the Income Tax authority had adopted a Deed of Variation of the trust deed of the Superannuation Fund. Some of the basic features of this deed were that superannuation benefits in terms of the pensions to eligible members would be linked to individual's own contribution and would have no linkage with either the period of service or last salary drawn and the management of the Fund was also transferred to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The corpus available with the fund as on December 31, 2003 was allocated amongst all the members of the fund, both serving and separated officers and the allocated amount was transferred to the LIC as the opening balance of the individual member as on January 1, 2004. 4. It was also mentioned that the Trustees would purchase deferred annuity for persons who separated from the service of the Company so that pension might become payable to them from their notional date of retirement. 4. It was also mentioned that the Trustees would purchase deferred annuity for persons who separated from the service of the Company so that pension might become payable to them from their notional date of retirement. The Trustee would provide for payment of immediate pension benefits to the members of the fund and buy an annuity for the separated officers. The purchase value of the same would correspond to the amount allocated as opening balance to them. The last option was that allocated amount with the LIC would grow with interest, bonus etc., till such time the officers would opt for pension or till the notional date of retirement when the Trustee would buy an annuity for them the purchase value of which would correspond to the accumulated balance standing to the credit of the said officers with LIC. 5. The petitioners have given the method of calculation of pension under the scheme of the Superannuation Fund which existed at the time of their separation from the Company. It is their grievance that by the attempted amendment of Superannuation Scheme it was proposed that the pension amount was worked out after discontinuing at the rate of 13.833% on the balance period of service. Thus, pension was drastically reduced. 6. By a letter, dated January 28, 2004 the petitioner no. 2 opposed the move mentioning inter alia that believing the assurance of the Company the petitioners had opted for the voluntary retirement scheme and special voluntary separation scheme and the same cannot be taken away at any circumstances whatsoever. In reply, the Company through their Executive Director had taken a plea that since notional date of retirement of the petitioner no. 2 was on January 1, 2013 he was bound by the decision of the respondent no. 2. 7. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from giving any effect to the decision of the respondent no. 3 in the Deed of Variation of the Superannuation Funds of the Company as communicated by the letter, dated January 12, 2004 and for other reliefs. 8. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from giving any effect to the decision of the respondent no. 3 in the Deed of Variation of the Superannuation Funds of the Company as communicated by the letter, dated January 12, 2004 and for other reliefs. 8. The respondents contested the writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein they questioned the maintainability of the writ petition against the Trustees of the Company's Superannuation Fund as they were neither State nor other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They have stated that the fund is a private trust governed by a contributory scheme which is voluntary in nature and is funded largely by the contributions made by the employees of the Company. The Company itself provides a minimum token contribution to the scheme. The Trustees have been appointed from amongst the members for the purpose of managing the Superannuation Fund and the Trustees are not discharging any statutory duty or public function. They are governed by the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 which provides for a remedy in the event there is a dispute between the Trustees and the beneficiaries of the scheme. 9. It is the case of the respondents that the Superannuation Fund was established in the year 1989 for making provisions for pension benefit for certain category of employees of the Company on their retirement or for the beneficiaries as defined in the principal deed. The Trustees had the authority to amend or add provisions to the principal deed subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax having jurisdiction over the fund. 10. The Superannuation Fund was approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the year 1989. Increase in the cost of annuities and the reduction of interest rates during the last few years and the decrease in contribution to the fund created a situation which jeopardized the viability of the said fund leading to a mismatch between the quantum of contribution and benefit to be provided to the members as per the existing rules of the fund which were adversely affecting the viability of the fund and became detrimental to the interest of the members in the long run. The Trustees considered its expedience to arrest this trend and converted this Scheme to a defined contribution scheme by which superannuation benefit was given to the members in more logical and fair manner. According to the respondents the Trustees had taken a pragmatic view of the situation to protect the interest of the beneficiaries without any discrimination. The Deed of Variation was duly approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 11. It has been the further case of the respondents that the officers who had left the service of the Company under the voluntary retirement scheme were provided with two options viz., either to accept pension with immediate effect or to accept the same from the notional date of their retirement. The total number of members in the fund was 752 out of which 259 officers were separated through Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Of them 81 had opted for immediate pension and 27 opted for pension at a later date. The other officers have not furnished their options. Of these 108 officers who have given their options only 15 are the members of the petitioner no. 1. They would not be affected by conversion of the scheme and this will affect the contribution made by the existing officers of the Company. 12. The respondents have denied the allegations made by the petitioners. They have stated that neither the company nor its Managing Director is directly involved in the management of Superannuation Fund. Since the fund had faced a deficit, the Company's one time contribution of Rs. 15.07 crores to the fund was a gesture of goodwill though there is no contractual or statutory obligation of the Company. In spite of this contribution the fund continued to be unviable as a result of 72% increase in the cost of annuities and falling rates of interest. The Trustees were left with no other option but to review the scheme in the interest of the members. 13. By a letter, dated February 5, 2004, the Executive Director (Human Resources) of the Company informed the petitioner no. 2 that the company had no contractual obligation as against the members of the pension fund and the Superannuation Fund was a self-contributory fund administered by the Trustees. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. 13. By a letter, dated February 5, 2004, the Executive Director (Human Resources) of the Company informed the petitioner no. 2 that the company had no contractual obligation as against the members of the pension fund and the Superannuation Fund was a self-contributory fund administered by the Trustees. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 14. The company subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit inter alia stating that on November 26, 2008 the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Government of India, revised the pay scale and other allowances for the Board level and below Board level executives and non-unionized supervisors in Central Public Sector Enterprises. It will be evident that the Superannuation benefits included Contributory Provident Fund and allied benefits. All the Central Public Sector Enterprises were directed to make their own scheme to manage the Superannuation Funds through insurance companies on fixed contribution basis. The respondent nos. 1 and 3 had taken similar decision way back in the year 2003. Again on April 2, 2009, the Ministry issued an office memorandum for implementation of the earlier office memorandum. It would be evident that the superannuation benefit was scheduled to be under a defined contribution scheme which the respondents had taken in the year 2003. The supplementary affidavit referred to some office memoranda and stated that it was the endeavour of the concerned Ministry to limit the Superannuation benefit of the employees to defined contribution scheme. All the members of the petitioner no. 1 as well as the petitioner no. 2 signed necessary documents by which they acceded to the decisions taken or to be taken by the respondent no. 3. Therefore, they are estopped from raising any dispute with regard to the decisions taken by the respondent no. 3. 15. Mr. Saha, the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 1 Company submitted that the Trustees of the Superannuation Fund being independent of the Company no writ petition can be maintained against it. The respondent no. 3 does not carry out any statutory function or duty or perform any public function. 16. Mr. Saha also questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to file the present writ petition. The petitioner is an association of the ex-officers of the Company. While the ex-officers claimed to be affected the writ petition has been filed by an Association formed by them. The petitioner no. 16. Mr. Saha also questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to file the present writ petition. The petitioner is an association of the ex-officers of the Company. While the ex-officers claimed to be affected the writ petition has been filed by an Association formed by them. The petitioner no. 1 is not affected by any action of the respondent no. 1 and, therefore, it cannot have any locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. Mr. Saha referred to the decision in Sand Carrier's Union and Others Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and Others, reported in AIR 1990 Cal 176 , where a learned single Judge of this Court had observed that a writ petition at the instance of an association is not maintainable where the association itself is not affected by the order. The member of such association may be affected by a common order but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the members, the writ petition at the instance of such association is not maintainable. 17. Mr. Saha also relied on the case of West Bengal Court Employees' Association Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2017) 3 WBLR 483 (Cal), where a learned single Judge, in connection with a challenge thrown to the selection process of certain classes of employees belonging to various categories of a court, held that the petitioners could not establish slender connection between the association and the examination process, no member of the association had been affected and mere complaint about the conduct of the examination may not confer any right on the association to espouse the cause of its non-members. 18. Mr. Saha further argued that the writ petition against the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Trustees of the Superannuation Fund is not maintainable as the Company did not have any control over the said Fund. The Rules of the Fund show that the Company will have only limited authority to appoint four Trustees of the said Trust. The Company also made a token contribution to it. The other four Trustees were appointed by the existing Trustees of the Trust and no decision was taken by the majority of the Fund. He submitted that the Trust Deed did not have the statutory character. The Company also made a token contribution to it. The other four Trustees were appointed by the existing Trustees of the Trust and no decision was taken by the majority of the Fund. He submitted that the Trust Deed did not have the statutory character. That four of the Trustees were the employees of the Company was merely incidental in nature and cannot prove that the respondent no. 3 was under the direct control and supervision of the Company. 19. In support of his contention Mr. Saha relied on the case of Rajveer Sharma Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation, reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 7370 where a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had held that when a Pension Scheme is framed and is implemented through a Trust Deed having on its Board employees of public sector enterprises there is no public law function or public function being performed by the respondents either jointly or severally. The Division Bench was considering the Trust Deed entered between the National Thermal Power Corporation and the employees of the Company. Relying on that it was argued that the power of the respondent no. 1 was limited to the appointment of four Trustees only, except for some ancillary works. Therefore, the Trust is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. 20. The respondents have taken a further point of estoppel. Since the petitioner no. 1 accepted the Superannuation Scheme and the Voluntary Retirement Scheme they are estopped from challenging the same or from acting in a manner contrary to the essence and terms and conditions of the said Superannuation Scheme and the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Scheme was changed from "Defined Benefit Scheme" to a "Defined Contribution Scheme" which was necessary for the various reasons as mentioned before. The authority of the respondent no. 3 to vary the Superannuation Scheme has not been questioned in the writ petition. 21. A further stand of the respondents was that since the notional date of retirement of the members of the petitioner no. 1 did not arrive when the Deed of Variation was executed they were not entitled to receive any benefit of the Superannuation Scheme. Since they had accepted and acted upon both the Schemes the working of the Scheme cannot be challenged by the members of the petitioner no. 1 did not arrive when the Deed of Variation was executed they were not entitled to receive any benefit of the Superannuation Scheme. Since they had accepted and acted upon both the Schemes the working of the Scheme cannot be challenged by the members of the petitioner no. 1 and their rights were not crystalized at the time of the execution of the Deed of Variance. Their rights would only crystalize once the annuity is purchased from the Fund which had not taken place in the present case before the amendment. In Sasadhar Chakraborty and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 1 , the Supreme Court while considering the Indian Oxygen Limited staffs' Pension Fund observed that it was created out of the contributions made by the employer in respect of its employees who were in service in the manner provided under the Income Tax Act and Rules. The right of an employee to receive the annuity and the quantum of the annuity gets determined at the time when the annuity is purchased. Any subsequent improvements in a given Pension Fund Scheme would not be available to those persons whose rights are already crystalized under the annuity scheme by which they are governed. 22. To the same effect is also the judgment in the case of Air India Self-Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme Vs. Kuriakose V. Cherian and Others, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 404 where the Supreme Court observed that the rights of the employees to receive annuity and the quantum of annuity get crystalized at the time of purchase of the annuity. 23. It was lastly submitted that the right of the respondent no. 3 to amend the Superannuation Scheme cannot be questioned by the members of the petitioner no. 1 as their rights under the old scheme only vests in them at the time of superannuation which did not arrive at the time of execution of the Deed of Variation on December 15, 2003. That apart, the variation had been made for larger public interest. 24. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner no. 1 is a registered society consisting of ex-officers of the respondent no. 1 Company. They had availed themselves of Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the Company in the years 2000 and 2002 respectively. That apart, the variation had been made for larger public interest. 24. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner no. 1 is a registered society consisting of ex-officers of the respondent no. 1 Company. They had availed themselves of Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the Company in the years 2000 and 2002 respectively. Even if the judgments in Sand Carrier's Union and Others (Supra) and West Bengal Court Employees' Association (Supra) apply it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner no. 2 is an ex-officer of the petitioner no. 1 Company who had also taken voluntary retirement on September 30, 2002. An individual, if he is affected by any action of the respondents, can definitely maintain a writ petition even without prosecuting the same as a representative action after obtaining the leave of the Court and without issuing notice even if all the persons affected by the order impugned do not get a chance to join the writ petition and the members of the class who may be affected may not be bound by the decision of the Court. But the right of an individual to challenge an action at his instance cannot be denied merely because a representative application of the sort as provided in the analogous provision contained in Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been complied with. In both the judgments relied on by Mr. Saha on the point of locus standi of the petitioners it was only the association or associations which had moved the petition and not any individual member of the same. 25. Although the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 3 refraining it from giving any effect to its decision in the Deed of Variation of the Superannuation Funds of the respondent no. 1 the Scheme is of the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 is controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. Factually the Pension Fund of the National Thermal Power Corporation is different in nature. In the present case the Company nominates 50% of the Trustees of the Board and thus it cannot be said that such nomination is merely incidental without making it amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It is thus held that the grievance of the petitioners against the respondents is maintainable. 26. In the present case the Company nominates 50% of the Trustees of the Board and thus it cannot be said that such nomination is merely incidental without making it amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It is thus held that the grievance of the petitioners against the respondents is maintainable. 26. It is a settled proposition of law that where rules of retirement and the entitlement of an individual are accepted any variation made in such rules after the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is accepted and completed shall have no application to the employees who have already accepted the same. When once a decision has been taken by an authority assuring an employee the terms and entitlement of Voluntary Retirement Scheme the same should not be allowed to be unilaterally altered or varied or modified. 27. I quite agree with the submissions of Mr. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, that the documents of the year 2008 have no relevance for deciding the present dispute as long before that the process of taking voluntary retirement of the members of the petitioner no. 1 was completed. Mr. Chakraborty has raised an issue that the documents of 2008 relate to the employees who were in service at the relevant point of time. He submitted that the stand of the respondents that the claim of the petitioners can be against the respondent no. 3 who are the sole authority for taking decisions in respect of the relevant Schemes and Funds is an effort to bypass its liabilities which the respondent company stipulated in the concerned Scheme, dated August 28, 1989. The Superannuation Funds and the relevant Schemes were introduced by the Company itself and the Trust was only required to maintain the Fund which was accumulated in the Scheme. 28. In the earlier round of litigation filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 783 of 2003 a learned single Judge by an order, dated May 22, 2003 had held that the petitioners could not alter agreement as they were bound by the agreement made with their eyes open. If that be so and if that was the reason for dismissal of the earlier writ petition that very principle of law must equally apply to the respondents as well. If that be so and if that was the reason for dismissal of the earlier writ petition that very principle of law must equally apply to the respondents as well. If the petitioners could not ask for alteration or variation of the terms of agreement, the respondents also could not without the consent of the members of the petitioner no. 1 effect any change in the terms of agreement. 29. After the employees have obtained the voluntary retirement trusting on certain terms and conditions a Deed of Variation introducing a new Scheme is plainly impermissible. The employees had accepted the terms as they had found them to be acceptable and the balance of convenience lay in favour of such acceptance. After having done so and having been assured of the benefits of certain terms and conditions by a Deed of Variation the terms could not be altered, and that too in respect of employees who had accepted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme long before the Deed of Variation was brought into being. I quite agree with the submissions of Mr. Chakraborty that the respondent Company is required to perform its promise and not avoid its obligation by detaching itself from the Board of Trustees. Once the members of the petitioner no. 1 have accepted the terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the Company they have a right which has been created in their favour to get what had been assured to them in terms of the relevant Scheme. 30. In such view of it, I find sufficient merit in the submissions of the petitioners. The respondents are directed not to give any effect or further effect to the decision of the respondent no. 3 in the Deed of Variation of the Superannuation Fund. They are further directed to release the arrear amount of all the voluntarily retired employees whose interest had been affected by the Deed of Variation. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. 31. The writ petition succeeds. 32. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 33. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. 34. S. Banerjee Later After the delivery of the judgment and order, Mr. 31. The writ petition succeeds. 32. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 33. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. 34. S. Banerjee Later After the delivery of the judgment and order, Mr. Dasgupta, the learned Advocate for the respondents, prays for stay of the operation of the same. 35. In view of what has been discussed above and for the reasons mentioned in the body of judgment, I decline to pass any order of stay of its operation. 36. The prayer for stay is heard, considered and rejected. After the rejection of the prayer for stay of operation of judgment and order, Mr. Dasgupta prays for extension of time granted by the Court for releasing of the arrear amount of the voluntary retired employees. 37. This Court had granted four weeks' time. On the prayer of the learned Advocate for the respondents, the time is extended by two more weeks, i.e., the exercise for releasing the arrear amount shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.