JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Since the identical issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court with a common prayer for issuance of appropriate direction upon the Respondents, especially Respondent No. 2 for grant of pensionary benefits under Rule 29 of the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007. 4. The facts of the case in short is that the present petitioners are either retired employees or legal heirs of the retired employees of NIT, Jamshedpur, who have retired prior to 01.04.1992. It is the case of the petitioners that the Regional Institute of Technology (RIT) was established by the then State Government of Bihar in the year 1960, wherein the expenses of the Institute were equally divided between the State and the Union. Thereafter all Regional Institutes of Technology were converted into National Institute of Technology wherein the complete expenses, fixed as well as recurring were payable by the Union of India. The National Institute of Technology was formed as a result of the ‘First Statute of National Institutes of Technology, 2007’. The said enactment was applicable to all the National Institute of Technology across the country. Rule 29 of the ‘First Statute of National Institutes of Technology, 2007’ reads as under: “Rule 29: Provident Funds and Pension Scheme : Employees of the Institute appointed prior to 1.1.2004 will be governed by Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 and the employees appointed on or after 1.1.2004 will be governed by New Pension Scheme of Central Government.” 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that even though the act provides that pensionary benefits shall be given to retired employees but the same was denied by the respondent-authorities in a most arbitrary manner and as such, few similarly situated employees approached the respective Hon’ble High Court within the territorial jurisdiction vis-à-vis the NIT was situated. It is the further case of the petitioners that even though the act provides that pensionary benefits shall be given to retired employees but the same was denied by the respondent-authorities in a most arbitrary manner and as such, few similarly situated employees approached the respective Hon’ble High Court within the territorial jurisdiction vis-à-vis the NIT was situated. The writ petitions bearing numbered as CWP No. 12522 of 2005, CWP No.3969 of 2005 and 4262 of 2006 were preferred before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, by the employees of National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra (Earlier known as Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra) wherein it was prayed that according to Rule 29 of the National Institute of Technology, 2007 also known as ‘the First statute of National Institutes of technology’ pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Servants (Pension) Scheme, 1972 should be afforded to the employees appointed before 1.1.2004 and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was pleased to allow all the writ petitions vide its judgment dated 26.03.2012 and directed the National Institute of Technology (for short NIT), Kurukshetra to publish a circular and give effect to the same. In compliance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Court, NIT Kurukshetra issued a public notice inviting the attention of the employees/ex-employees by giving them an option to avail benefits under the Central Civil Service (Pension Rules), 1972. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated 21.02.2013, whereby it was decided to implement the scheme for the employees of NIT Kurukshetra and Silchar and requested the concerned authorities to take steps regarding the same. Though the cases of the present petitioners are similar to the employees, who had preferred writ petitions before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court but the same and similar benefits were denied to the present petitioners, even after repeated requests and representations made by them to that effect. It is the specific case of the petitioners that NIT Kurukshetra took a comprehensive steps and even formed a Pension Cell to co-ordinate and provide pensionary benefits to its employees and ex-employees. The implementation of the same was done by NIT Kurukshetra and Silchar on the basis of the notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resources vide notification dated 21.02.2013. The implementation of the same was done by NIT Kurukshetra and Silchar on the basis of the notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resources vide notification dated 21.02.2013. The present petitioners and similarly situated other employees, who had served the NIT, Jamshedpur, wrote letters to the Ministry of Human Resources, whereby it was requested for implementation of the same pension scheme for NIT Jamshedpur but the respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 15.03.2018 passed order for maintenance of status quo in the matter of payment of pension. 6. Since the colleagues of the petitioners working in NIT Kurukshetra and Silchar have received the pensionary benefits but the present petitioners have been denied the same, they were constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court. 7. During the pendency of the writ Petitions, Respondent No. 2 has held its 39th meeting of the Board of Governors on the 20th of August 2019 wherein vide resolution bearing No.BOG/MIN/39/2019-08/14, it has been resolved by the Board not to grant the benefits of the scheme to the employees who have retired prior to 1st of April 1992. The said resolution has been challenged by the petitioners by way of filing separate interlocutory applications in all the writ applications, which have been allowed and treated as a part of the main writ vide order dated 16.12.2019. 8. Mr. Shresth Gautam and Mr. Sudharshan Shrivastava, learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners strenuously urge that the Petitioners are retired employees or legal heirs of the retired employees of National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur (the then Regional Institute of Technology) and the ‘First Statute of National Institute of Technology, 2007’ is applicable to all the National Institutes of Technology across the country and stipulation to that effect has been made under Rule 1(2) of the said Act which reads as under: “1. Short Title, Extent and Commencement (1) These Statues may be called The First Statues of the National Institutes of Technology. (2) These shall apply to all the National Institutes of Technology. (3) They shall come to force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette” It is further argued that bare perusal of the above-mentioned provision make it clear that the provisions of the Act are applicable to all NITs including, NIT, Jamshedpur. (2) These shall apply to all the National Institutes of Technology. (3) They shall come to force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette” It is further argued that bare perusal of the above-mentioned provision make it clear that the provisions of the Act are applicable to all NITs including, NIT, Jamshedpur. Rule 29 of the First Statues of the National Institutes of Technology provides that the retiral benefit to the employees who have been appointed prior to 1st of January 2004 have to be given in accordance with the Central Civil Service Pension Rules 1972 and Central Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1950. Learned counsels further argues that the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide its order dated 26th of March 2012 passed in CWP 4262 of 2006 has held as under: “Rule 29 of the Statutes that set out the general terms and conditions of the service of permanent employees specifically lays down that an employee appointed on or after 1.1.2004 shall be governed by the New Pension Scheme announced by the Government of India, while the employees of the Institute appointed even before 1.1.2004 are governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This claim of the Petitioners is resisted by the Board of Governors of the National Institute of technology at Kurukshetra contending that persons, who had retired before 1.01.2004 have all been members of the contributory provident fund and not being in service at the time when the Act came into force, they are not entitled to the same. I would reject the above argument of the Respondent only for the reason that the Statues makes a specific reference to the employees of the Institute prior to 1.01.2004 as the persons to be governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In respect of the such person, who were contributory to CPF and who have also withdrawn the benefits, they could be given an option to re-deposit the amount drawn by them with an interest of 12% per annum within a specified period and all such persons, who exercise such option to be admitted to the pension scheme of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.” 9. Learned counsels further argues that the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was followed by the NIT, Kurukshetra and in compliance thereof, an notice was published vide No. 19/2012 wherein, the employees appointed prior to 01.01.2004 were given the benefits of Scheme made under Rule 29 of the First Statues of the National Institutes of Technology. Learned counsel further argues that during the pendency of the instant writ petitions, a Board Meeting was held wherein the Board of Governor vide item no. BOG/MIN/39/2019-08/14 have taken a decision that the benefits under the act shall not be extended to the employees who have retired prior to 1st of April 1992. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the Board has exercised powers beyond their jurisdiction inasmuch as the Board cannot make rules/regulations/orders in contravention to the parent statue. In a similar matter, which was also related to the grant of pensionary benefits under Rule 29, it was held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Dr. K.A. Kuppusamy v. State of Madras [WP(MD) 14385 of 2011], that the ‘First Statute of National Institute of Technology Act’ is a delegated piece of legislation and the same has to be followed in accordance with the Statute. Learned counsels accordingly submits that the resolution passed by the Board is in contravention to the statute and the same is liable to be quashed. 10. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-NIT vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that RIT, Jamshedpur was a joint venture of the Central Government as well as the State Govt. The benefits of Triple Benefit Scheme made applicable to RIT Jamshedpur w.e.f. 06.09.1999 and therefore, this benefit of Triple benefit Scheme was not allowed to the erstwhile employees of NIT Jamshedpur who retired between 01.04.1992 to 06.09.1999. Mr. Mehta further submits that in view of the judicial pronouncements and the ratio laid down by the different High Courts particularly, that of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Madras High Court, the Institute is ready to pay the arrears if at all the funds are made available by Department of Human Resources, Govt. of India. 11. Mr. Mr. Mehta further submits that in view of the judicial pronouncements and the ratio laid down by the different High Courts particularly, that of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Madras High Court, the Institute is ready to pay the arrears if at all the funds are made available by Department of Human Resources, Govt. of India. 11. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-UOI submits that as per National Institutes of Technology Science Education and Research Act, 2007, NITs are autonomous Institutions. Learned senior counsel further argues that Ministry of Finance has concurred upon the decision of Board of Governor of Institute to extend the benefits of Triple Benefit Scheme w.e.f. 01.04.1992 and the same was conveyed to the NIT Jamshedpur vide Ministry’s letter dated 19.05.2015 for extending the said benefits to the retired employees of NIT Jamshedpur, who had retired between 01.04.1992 to 06.09.1999. From the above account, it is clear that the cut-off date 01.04.1992 was decided by the Board of Governors of NIT Jamshedpur and Ministry of HRD had no direct role in that decision. Moreover, the Ministry of HRD took up the case with the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Law to decide the matter of employees who retired between 01.04.1992 to 06.09.1999 from NIT Jamshedpur in light of the decision of the Board to make the scheme effective from 01.04.1992. Thereafter, an advisory was passed to NIT Jamshedpur to adhere with the instructions of letter dated 19.05.2015, as the decision was taken by the then Board of Governors. Learned senior counsel further argues that the cases of the present petitioners are different from the employees of NIT Kurukshetra/Silchar/Jalandhar as the cut-off date which was decided by the then Board of Governors in case of NIT Jamshedpur was accepted by Ministry of HRD in consultation with Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Law & Justice. Learned senior counsel submits that in brief the Board decided the cut-off date i.e. 01.04.1992 and further submits that the Board of Governors of the NIT Jamshedpur is the apex decision making body on this issue. Mr. Sinha argues that a cut-off date was fixed by the State of Bihar as at that time, State of Bihar contributed 50% of funds and in furtherance thereof, a decision to that effect has been taken by the Union of India. 12. Mr. Sinha argues that a cut-off date was fixed by the State of Bihar as at that time, State of Bihar contributed 50% of funds and in furtherance thereof, a decision to that effect has been taken by the Union of India. 12. Be that as it may, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that cases of the present petitioners need consideration. The sole issue involved in these batch of writ petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled for fixation of pension in consonance with the Rule 29 of the First Statue of the National Institute of Technology. Before dwelling into the issue, it would be apposite to go through the Rule 29, which reads as under: “Rule 29 : Provident Funds and Pension Scheme : Employees of the Institute appointed prior to 1.1.2004 will be governed by Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 and the employees appointed on or after 1.1.2004 will be governed by New Pension Scheme of Central Government.” From a bare reading of the said rule, it transpires that the employees of the Institute, who had been appointed prior to 01.01.2004 will be governed by Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Provident Fund (Central Services), Rules 1960 and the employees appointed on or after 01.01.2004 will be governed by New Pension Scheme of Central Government. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court passed an order dated 26.03.2012, in CWP No. 12522 of 2005, wherein the Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct that pension be given to all retired employees who have retired prior to 01.01.2004 as per the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Provident Fund (Central Services), Rules 1960. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: “Rule 29 of the Statutes that set out the general terms and conditions of the service of permanent employees specifically lays down that an employee appointed on or after 1.1.2004 shall be governed by the New Pension Scheme announced by the Government of India, while the employees of the Institute appointed even before 1.1.2004 are governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This claim of the Petitioners is resisted by the Board of Governors of the National Institute of technology at Kurukshetra contending that persons, who had retired before 1.01.2004 have all been members of the contributory provident fund and not being in service at the time when the Act came into force, they are not entitled to the same. I would reject the above argument of the Respondent only for the reason that the Statues makes a specific reference to the employees of the Institute prior to 1.01.2004 as the persons to be governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In respect of the such person, who were contributory to CPF and who have also withdrawn the benefits, they could be given an option to re-deposit the amount drawn by them with an interest of 12% per annum within a specified period and all such persons, who exercise such option to be admitted to the pension scheme of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.” The Hon’ble Madras High Court has reiterated the view in case of Dr. K.A. Kuppusamy Vs. State of Madras [W.P. (MD) No. 14385 of 2011], wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under: “In my considered opinion, there is no infirmity or illegality or irregularity in the said decision taken by the Board. At this juncture, we have to take note of the fact that in the year 2007, the National Institute of Technology Act came into being, and thus, the NIT, Tiruchirappalli falls within the ambit of the said Act. In exercise of the powers conferred under the said Act, under Sub-Section 1 of Section 26, the Statute was issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development. There could be no doubt that this Statute has got statutory force as it is a delegated legislation. It need not be over emphasised that when a particular field is occupied by a legislation, then, the executive power of the Government shall not be extended to issue any order in conflict with the said Statute. In other words, in respect of the field occupied by means of a legislative act, there could be no executive order in force which will run contrary to the statutory provisions. In other words, in respect of the field occupied by means of a legislative act, there could be no executive order in force which will run contrary to the statutory provisions. Applying this well settled Constitutional position, I have to hold that after the Statute had come into force, all the executive orders and instructions which were in place prior to coming into force of the said Statute shall cease to have any effect. Therefore, the argument of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that the CPF, which the petitioners have opted, will continue to have force, cannot be countenanced at all. As I have already pointed out, after coming into force of the Statute, the Provident Fund and Pension shall be governed only by the provisions of the Statute alone. 22.Now, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Clause 29 of the Statute mandates that employees of the institute appointed prior to 01.01.2004 shall be governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960. In respect of employees who were appointed on or before 01.01.2004, they will be governed by the new Pension Scheme of the Central Government. Therefore, in view of this mandatory provision, which has got statutory force, occupying the field, I have to hold that the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, because they were appointed prior to 01.01.2004.” 13. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no more res-integra. Further, from perusal of Rule-29, it appears that employees of the institute appointed prior to 01.01.2004 shall be governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960. In respect of employees who were appointed on or after 01.01.2004, will be governed by the new Pension Scheme of the Central Government. Therefore, in view of this mandatory provision, which has got statutory force, occupying the field, this Court is in full agreement with what has been held by other Courts that those employees who have been appointed prior to 01.01.2004 are entitled for the benefits of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Central Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960. 14. 14. It is a settled principle of law that no rules, regulations or orders can prevail over the parent statutes. In the instant case, the Board has exercised its powers beyond the competence and hence, the said rules being in contravention of the statute, is null and void. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K. Kuppusamy & Anr. v. State of T.N. & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 469 has held that: “3. The short point on which these appeals must succeed is that the Tribunal fell into an error in taking the view that since the Government had indicated its intention to amend the relevant rules, its action in proceeding on the assumption of such amendment could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary and, therefore, the consequential orders passed have to be upheld. We are afraid this line of approach cannot be countenanced. The relevant rules, it is admitted, were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. They are statutory rules. Statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended, the rule applies. Even today the amendment has not been effected. As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in ignoring the rule.” 15. For the reasons stated above, the resolution of the 39th meeting of the Board of Governors bearing No. BOG/MIN/39/2019-08/14 dated 20th of August 2019, being in contravention to the Statute is accordingly quashed and set aside. The other NITs namely, NIT Kurukshetra/Silchar/Jalandhar have allowed its employees to avail the benefits of Scheme made under Rule 29 of the First Statue of the National Institute of Technology. Since the NITs across the country are governed by the same Statute, therefore, the employees of NIT, Jamshedpur appointed prior to 01.04.2004 are also entitled for the same benefits what has been extended to the employees of NIT Kurukshetra/Silchar/Jalandhar. 16. Since the NITs across the country are governed by the same Statute, therefore, the employees of NIT, Jamshedpur appointed prior to 01.04.2004 are also entitled for the same benefits what has been extended to the employees of NIT Kurukshetra/Silchar/Jalandhar. 16. Since, funds for extending the Triple benefit Scheme to the employees retired prior to 01.04.1992 is to flow from respondent No. 1, the competent-authority to take a decision, this Court directs the respondent No. 1 to sanction and allot the funds to NIT, Jamshedpur and further NIT Jamshedpur is directed to act accordingly and make arrangements for extending the Triple Benefit Scheme to its employees, who had retired prior 01.04.1992 also. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.