JUDGMENT : S.V. Bhatti, J. The appellant is Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director/respondent no.2 in the batch of writ petitions. The appeals arise from the common judgment dated 10.04.2015 in W.P.(C) Nos.12990/2012, 627/2013, 16602/2013 and 22555/2013. The party respondents in the writ appeal were the employees of the appellant and were retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years. For convenience and consistency, the parties are referred to as Beverages Corporation, State Government and (retired) employees. 2. The parties admit the circumstances preceding the present litigation. The current round of litigation is a sequel to the earlier litigation involving the Beverages Corporation, the State Government, and the Employees of the Corporation. Therefore, it is helpful to refer to the following circumstances leading to the filing of W.P.(C) Nos.12990/2012, 627/2013, 16602/2013 and 22555/2013 in this Court by the employees claiming continuation in service till attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years as per the Resolution of the Board dated 27.05.2005 of the Beverages Corporation. 2.1 The Beverages Corporation is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and has the character and status of a fully owned government company. The Beverages Corporation is the sole licensee for the purchasing and selling of liquor and beverages in the State of Kerala. The Beverages Corporation, for the purpose of governing service conditions of employees, has ‘Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. Employees Service Rules 1986’ (for short, the Rules). Rule 43 deals with the age of retirement. As of 27.05.2005, Rule 43 reads as follows: “43. Superannuation; All employees shall retire from the service of the Corporation on the last day of the month in which he completes 55 years of age.” 2.2 On 27.05.2005, the Board of Directors of Beverages Corporation resolved to amend Rule 43 of the Rules and enhance the age of superannuation from 55 to 58. The Resolution of the Board reads thus: “Item No: 1867(B): Retirement age of Employees in the Corporation. The Board noted that the retirement age in the KSBC Service Rules is 55 years, while the retirement for employees in most of the Public Sector is 58 years. The Resolution of the Board reads thus: “Item No: 1867(B): Retirement age of Employees in the Corporation. The Board noted that the retirement age in the KSBC Service Rules is 55 years, while the retirement for employees in most of the Public Sector is 58 years. It is also noted that the full benefit of EPF pension will be available to the employees of KSBC only if contributions are made till the age of 58 years, for which a person has to remain in service till the age of 58 years. In due consideration to the representations made and the recommendations put forth in the Board, it was decided to recommend: raising the retirement age of the employee in the Corporation from 55 years to 58 years. The following resolution was passed. "Resolved to recommend to Government the raising of retirement age in the Corporation from 55 years to 58 years as is followed in Public Sector Companies and place proposals before the government.” As per the requirement of a Regulation or Understanding between the Beverages Corporation and the State Government, the Beverages Corporation, by letter dated 01.06.2005, requested the State Government to accept/approve the Resolution dated 27.05.2005, and facilitate suitable amendment to Rule 43. 2.3 The State Government, by G.O.(Rt) No.409/2005/TD dated 02.07.2005, rejected the proposal of the Beverages Corporation for enhancing the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 years for the employees working in the Beverages Corporation. The employees of the Beverages Corporation filed W.P.(C) No.36864/2003 and batch, and for convenience, we refer to the writ prayer, which reads as follows: “a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction to quash Ext.P6 issued by the 3rd respondent. b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing respondents 2 to 4 to take steps for the implementation of the decision of the Board of Directors dated 27.3.2003 to extend the retirement benefit from 1984 in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner. c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to take steps for enhancement of the retirement age of regular employees of Kerala State Beverages Corporation. c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to take steps for enhancement of the retirement age of regular employees of Kerala State Beverages Corporation. d) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service even after his attaining the age of 55 till a decision as regards the enhancement of retirement age of the employees of the Beverages Corporation is taken by the Government.” The batch of writ petitions was disposed of by the common judgment dated 15.03.2007. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petitions and the nature of the relief granted by the common judgment dated 15.03.2007 has a bearing on the contentions urged by the Beverages Corporation in the present round of litigation. Hence, the operative portion is excerpted hereunder: “6. In this connection, we also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Osmania University v. V.S.Muthurangam and others ( (1997) 10 SCC 741 ). The employees of the Corporation are members of Employees' Provident Fund. In the Employees Provident Fund a separate Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme has been introduced effective from 1995. The pension fund scheme envisages pension contribution by the employee/employer up to the age of 58 years of an employee for the employee to get the full benefit of pension under the scheme. Hence, the following resolution was passed by the Corporation: “Resolved to recommend to Government the raising of retirement age in the Corporation from 55 years to 58 years as is followed in Public Sector Companies and place proposals before the Government. We request that the decision of the Corporation's Board of Directors to raise the retirement age of the employees of KSBC from 55 years to 58 years and incorporate suitable amendment in clause 43 of the Service Rules.” 7. When the abkari workers' age is also increased to 60 and the deputed workers are working up to 58, there is no rhyme or reason to say that regular workers should be retired at the age of 55. When the abkari workers' age is also increased to 60 and the deputed workers are working up to 58, there is no rhyme or reason to say that regular workers should be retired at the age of 55. Even though they are not entitled to the pension like the Government employees, there is no reason for rejecting the proposal of the Corporation in extending the age of superannuation up to 58 and that rejection is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. There is hostile discrimination between similarly placed employees in other Corporations and even the employees working in the same Corporation. We hold that the regular employees of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation are entitled to continue till the age of 58 as decided by the Director Board of the Corporation and rejection of the above request by Government is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Of course, as decided by the Government, abkari workers can continue up to the age of 60 and we are not interfering with the above order. All the writ petitions are allowed to the above extent.” (emphasis supplied) 2.4 The State Government alone filed appeals in C.C. Nos.10791-10801/2007 before the Supreme Court. On 19.11.2007, the Apex Court stayed the operation of the common judgment dated 15.03.2007. The Employees who were on the verge of attaining 55 years and likely to be retired from service had the protection of the interim direction from this Court to continue in service till attaining the age of 58 years. By virtue of the writ petitions being allowed by this Court, such of the writ petitioners/employees of the Beverages Corporation continued to serve the Beverages Corporation. The Beverages Corporation, by order dated 21.11.2007, either retired or relieved the employees working in the Corporation beyond 55 years. The Beverages Corporation, in the instant communication, further noted that such employees are deemed to have been retired from the service of the Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd on attaining the superannuation age of 55 years. The retired employees/petitioners in the current round of litigation are retired from service after 21.11.2007 immediately upon attaining the age of 55 years of superannuation. The Beverages Corporation, referring to Rule 43, retired the employees despite the declaratory relief granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.36864/2003 and batch. The dates of retirement etc., are of little relevance. The retired employees/petitioners in the current round of litigation are retired from service after 21.11.2007 immediately upon attaining the age of 55 years of superannuation. The Beverages Corporation, referring to Rule 43, retired the employees despite the declaratory relief granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.36864/2003 and batch. The dates of retirement etc., are of little relevance. After adverting to a few other circumstances, we will revert to the interregnum period during which the employees have retired from service. 2.5 On 31.12.2010, the Board of Directors of the Beverages Corporation resolved to implement a pension scheme for the permanent staff of the Beverages Corporation or enhance the retirement age from 55 to 58 years subject to the approval by the State Government. On 06.01.2011, the proposal was forwarded to the State Government, and the State Government accepted the Resolution dated 31.12.2010 and issued G.O. (Manuscript) No.33/2011/TD dated 22.02.2011. the order reads thus: “2. Government has examined this matter in detail. The retirement age in all the main public sector undertakings is 58 and 60. The establishments in which the retirement age is fixed as 55, the pension as per the Kerala Service Rule is available. The employees of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation in which the E.P.F. is made applicable, have to continue in service till the age of 58 years for availing the maximum benefits of the said scheme. The retirement age in the main public sector undertakings in which the E.P.F. is made applicable is 58 years. 3. In the above mentioned circumstances, an order issued herewith enhancing the retirement age from 55 to 58 of the permanent staff of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, who are included in E.P.F. scheme. (emphasis supplied) 2.6 The State Government, either in the continuation or furtherance of its decision dated 22.02.2011, filed I.A. Nos. 8-14 in Civil Appeal Nos.3794-3800/2010. The applications moved by the State Government express and declare how the Civil Appeals are withdrawn from the Supreme Court. The application reads thus: “4. That in view of the Order dated 22.02.2011 stated above the present Civil Appeals have become infructuous. Hence Government of Kerala had instructed the Advocate General of Kerala to withdraw the above Civil Appeals. That a true copy of the said letter dated 14.06.2011 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A2.” On 27.04.2012, Civil Appeal Nos.3794-3800/2010 were dismissed as withdrawn. That in view of the Order dated 22.02.2011 stated above the present Civil Appeals have become infructuous. Hence Government of Kerala had instructed the Advocate General of Kerala to withdraw the above Civil Appeals. That a true copy of the said letter dated 14.06.2011 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A2.” On 27.04.2012, Civil Appeal Nos.3794-3800/2010 were dismissed as withdrawn. It is contextual to notice that G.O. (Ms) No.33/2011/TD dated 22.02.2011 per se is silent on the acceptance of the proposal for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 55 to 58, whether prospective or retrospective. The decision of the State Government to withdraw the Civil Appeals will have a bearing on the declaratory relief granted by this court in the common judgment dated 15.03.2007. 2.7 In the interregnum, a few other employees who have completed 55 years and are yet to turn 58 filed W.P.(C) No.6047/2010. The Court allowed the writ petition directing reinstatement and permitted the petitioners to continue until the petitioners therein attain the age of 58 years, with all consequential benefits. The employees who were retired during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition/Civil Appeal moved this Court for the following reliefs: “i) declare that the petitioners are entitled to all monetary benefits of pay and allowances including salary, medical reimbursement, ex- gratia/Bonus, increment, leave benefits including leave encashment, promotion benefits, Provident Fund benefits etc during the period from the date of their termination from the service of the second respondent till they attained the age of 58 years. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to pay the petitioners their salary, increments, promotion benefits, bonus, leave benefits including leave encashment, medical benefits and all other allowances and benefits from the date of their termination till they attained the age of 58 years and the differential amount in Gratuity and all retirement benefit including contribution to PF pension with interest. iii) Direct the respondents to pay all the monetary and benefits to the petitioners during the period in which the petitioners were illegally kept out of employment till they attained the age of 58 years. iii) Direct the respondents to pay all the monetary and benefits to the petitioners during the period in which the petitioners were illegally kept out of employment till they attained the age of 58 years. iv) quash exhibit P6 to the extent it is against the interests of the petitioners v) grant such other benefits, which are deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2.8 The Beverages Corporation contested the writ petition, and through the judgment impugned in the appeal, the writ petitions were disposed of as follows: “18. Drawing analogy from the above decision, I am of the definite view that the petitioners are entitled to get compensation in lieu of salary in addition to other retirement benefits due to the petitioners. While fixing the quantum of compensation, it should strike a proper balance between the contribution of the respondents in placing the petitioners to such a predicament as well as the contribution of the petitioners in inviting the troubles. Taking into consideration the plight of the petitioners who are compelled to retire from service pre-maturely, this Court is of the view that 50% of the last drawn salary which the petitioners were entitled to as on their effective date of retirement, from the date of the judgment in Kavirajan's case till the completion of 58 years would be a just compensation. All other service benefits due to the petitioners also shall be paid as if they were in service, had they not been terminated at the age of 55 years. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of as under: The respondent Corporation shall pay the petitioners compensation calculated at the rate of 50% of their last drawn salary as on the effective date of their retirement from the date of Kavirajan's case till the date of their completing the age of 58 years. n the case of petitioners who demitted their office after the judgment in Kavirajan's case, the amount as above shall be calculated from the date of effective retirement till the completion of 58 years. In the case of the petitioner/ petitioners who were reinstated, the actual period during which he/they were kept out of service shall be taken into account for arriving at the amount. In the case of the petitioner/ petitioners who were reinstated, the actual period during which he/they were kept out of service shall be taken into account for arriving at the amount. The respondents are also directed to pay other consequential retirement benefits, as if the petitioners were continuing in service from the date of the Kavirajan's case till the date of their completion of 58 years. Formal orders to this effect as well as the payment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Hence the writ appeals at the instance of the Beverages Corporation. 3. We have heard Advocates Mr T Naveen for Beverages Corporation, Mrs Sheela Devi I, Mr Saji Varghese, Mr Ashok B Shenoy and Mr Bejoy Chandran for the retired employees. 4. Advocate T Naveen argues that the State Government did not accept the Resolution of the Board of Directors dated 27.05.2005, resulting in G.O.(Rt) No.409/2005/TD dated 02.07.2005. No doubt it is correct and available from the record that this Court, by common judgment dated 15.03.2007 granted the declaratory relief to the petitioners who have questioned the proposed retirement on attaining the age of 55. The Supreme Court stayed the judgment of this Court dated 15.03.2007. The effect of the stay order granted by the Supreme Court is that the declaration of this Court on the age of retirement is unenforceable. The Beverages Corporation followed Rule 43 and retired such employees who were continued, pursuant to Interim Orders of this Court, and retired such employees who turned 55 years, i.e. the age of superannuation. Every employee who had a cause of action on either the retirement or proposed retirement challenged the action of the Beverages Corporation and invited adjudication from this Court. The common judgment dated 15.03.2007, known as the Kavirajan case, cannot be made applicable to the retired employees for the following legal grounds: (a) The retirement of employees was governed by Rule 43 of the Service Rules of the Beverages Corporation. (b) The retired employees, since did not work in the Beverages Corporation beyond 55 years till the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years, the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ is attracted. (b) The retired employees, since did not work in the Beverages Corporation beyond 55 years till the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years, the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ is attracted. (c) The learned Single Judge erred in law in directing 50% of salaries /backwages as compensation to the retired employees without determining whether the retired employees were gainfully employed between 55 and 58 years. (d) The payment of compensation to retired employees is directed though the Corporation is not at fault. (e) The retired employees, by their passive conduct, can be termed as fence-sitters or have pursued wait-and-watch on the ongoing litigation. (f) The retired employees are not entitled to compensation because of a delay or laches in approaching the Court. 4.1 He relies on Union of India v. Shri Hanuman Industries, 2015 KHC 4360 for the proposition that promissory estoppel is attracted to the retired employees who were deliberately bidding time to seek judicial remedy. The Counsel relies on K Ananda Rao v. S S Rawat, IAS, (2019) 13 SCC 24 , for the proposition that consequential benefits do not include relief in the form of compensation to retired employees. 5. The learned counsel for the retired employees argues that the retired employees are all Class-D employees working in the Beverages Corporation. Unfortunately, the timing of their retirement is between the common judgment dated 15.03.2007 and the dismissal order of Civil Appeal by the Apex Court on 27.04.2012. The writ petitions are filed seeking implementation of declaratory relief in the common judgment dated 15.03.2007. The inaction of the retired employees in challenging the order of retirement when all the issues are sub judice in the Supreme Court cannot be termed as laches or that the retired employees are fence-sitters. The Counsel contends that the State Government was aggrieved by the declaratory relief granted by this court in the common judgment dated 15.03.2007. The State Government has withdrawn the Civil Appeals with a categorical statement that the prayers in the appeal before the Supreme Court are rendered infructuous. The absolute and unconditional withdrawal by the State Government acts against the arguments now put forward by the Beverages Corporation which accepted the declaratory relief granted by this Court. The relief in the common judgment dated 15.03.2007 is declaratory relief in rem and not personam. The absolute and unconditional withdrawal by the State Government acts against the arguments now put forward by the Beverages Corporation which accepted the declaratory relief granted by this Court. The relief in the common judgment dated 15.03.2007 is declaratory relief in rem and not personam. The retired employees are denied employment for no fault of theirs, and the Beverages Corporation cannot be gainsaid that the retired employees failed to plead and prove that during the interregnum period, they were not gainfully employed. 5.1 The learned Single Judge has appreciated the totality of circumstances and did not give the relief as prayed for. The Counsel further urged that the retired employees are entitled to 100% back wages as compensation from the Beverages Corporation. The declaratory relief is granted to all the employees of the Beverages Corporation. Mr Shenoy and Mr Saji pray for dismissing the writ appeal and for allowing the Cross Objections filed by the retired employees. 6. We have perused the record and noted the rival submissions of the Counsel appearing for the respective parties. At the outset of our consideration, we notice that the Beverages Corporation did not challenge the common judgment dated 15.03.2007. The Beverages Corporation is a fence-sitter. The State Government laid the challenge by filing Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court. The consideration of the retirement age of the Beverages Corporation was upon two crucial aspects. The Board wanted an enhancement of the age of superannuation. The proposal of the Board was rejected by the Government, and had the Government been successful in the challenge laid against its order denying the recommendation of the Board of Directors dated 27.05.2005, then naturally, the age of superannuation in the Beverages Corporation might be 55 years. The employees of the Beverages Corporation, both on the grounds of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and denial of the proposal for enhancement of age on available legal grounds, challenged the decision of the State Government rejecting the Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Beverages Corporation. The employees were successful. A judgment in rem means and includes a declaratory judgment of the status of some subject matter, whether a person or a thing. The judgment is conclusive against all the world, and if the expression 'strictly in rem' may be applied to any class of cases, it should be confined to such as these. The employees were successful. A judgment in rem means and includes a declaratory judgment of the status of some subject matter, whether a person or a thing. The judgment is conclusive against all the world, and if the expression 'strictly in rem' may be applied to any class of cases, it should be confined to such as these. An act or proceeding is in rem when it is done or directed regarding no specific person and consequently against or concerning all whom it might concern, or ‘all the world’ [source: P Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon] 6.1 The declaratory relief in the case is a judgment in rem. The declaration in the common judgment decided the age of superannuation of employees in the Beverages Corporation as 58 years. The retirement of employees, contrary to the declaration, is undoubtedly illegal. The employees have merely awaited the consideration of declaratory relief by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3794-3800/2010. The inaction in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be treated as either promissory estoppel or suffering from laches. The withdrawal of Civil Appeals vacates the stay order granted by the Supreme Court on 19.11.2007, and the declaratory relief stares at the Beverages Corporation. The Beverages Corporation, having not worked out the remedy against the common judgment dated 15.03.2007, is estopped by conduct and record from acting contrary to the declaratory relief granted by this court. 6.2 Yet another circumstance which warrants our consideration is that there are three categories of employees who are retired from service upon attaining the age of 55 years: (a) Petitioners in Kavirajan’s case (b) Petitioners who retired after the interim order of the Supreme Court in C.C. 10791-10801/07 (c) Retired employees covered by the batch of cases. The Beverages Corporation has substantially extended the benefit of the age of retirement to categories covered by (a) and (b) up to 58 years and denied to category (c). The above consideration answers the argument of the Beverages Corporation on the conduct and circumstances disentitling any relief to the retired employees covered by the batch. These contentions of the Beverages Corporation are accordingly rejected. 7. The above deliberation takes us to the decisions relied on by the Beverages Corporation. The above consideration answers the argument of the Beverages Corporation on the conduct and circumstances disentitling any relief to the retired employees covered by the batch. These contentions of the Beverages Corporation are accordingly rejected. 7. The above deliberation takes us to the decisions relied on by the Beverages Corporation. After appreciating the circumstances and the ratio in both the citations relied on by the Beverages Corporation, we observe that the judgments in Shri Hanuman Industries and K Ananda Rao are distinguishable in more than one aspect. We are expected to state how the judgments relied on by the Beverages Corporation are distinguishable. However, we are relieved of such a burden having regard to the circumstances and the ratio decidendi laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347 ; Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 663 and K I Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431 which held that the employees who had not come to the Court should not be penalised for not having litigated and would be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners in the finally decided case. The principle laid down in the K I Shephard case is considered by the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Ghanshyam Dass, 2011 KHC 4133. These binding precedents completely answer the grounds canvassed by the Beverages Corporation. 7.1 We would first refer to the Arvind Kumar Srivastava case, where the Apex Court commenced the judgment by prefacing the following: “To mention at the outset, the Tribunal, as well as the High Court, has given the respondents herein benefit of the order passed by the Court in earlier round of litigation filed by similarly situated persons. The appellants contend that as far as these respondents are concerned, they never approached the Court seeking such a relief and were only fence-sitters and, therefore, relief should not have been granted to them even if they were similarly situated as those persons who have been granted relief in the petitions filed by them.” The said preface applies in all fours to the objections now raised by the Beverages Corporation in the instant appeals. 7.2 The Supreme Court further observed that: “…. such a situation has not occurred for the first time in the present appeal. 7.2 The Supreme Court further observed that: “…. such a situation has not occurred for the first time in the present appeal. There are many decisions of this Court. If the outcome of those judgments is seen, one finds that, in some cases, the Courts have extended the benefit to similarly situated persons. In contrast, in other instances, a similar benefit is denied to the second set of people who approached the Court subsequently. However, by delving deep into the rationale and reasoning of these two sets of cases, one can mentally recognise the logic behind different outcomes. Under what circumstance such a benefit can be extended, and what are the reasons for denying the same shall be discerned after taking note of those judgments? But, before undertaking that exercise, it would be apt to take note of the facts of this case to understand and appreciate how the respondents are placed. The Supreme Court considered the moot question of whether, in the given case, the approach of the Tribunal and the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained finality as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The decisions on both sides commencing from Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 648 till U P Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 are considered.” The Supreme Court, in paragraph 22, has laid down the legal principle as follows: “22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under. 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches g upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 7.2.1 In paragraph 23 of the judgment, after taking note of 27 years of the petitioner being out of employment directing reinstatement at that stage, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State. Now applying principles laid down in para 22.1 and 22.3, it can be held that the retired employees are seeking relief of the judgment in rem, and for maintaining equality among all the employees similarly situated, the judgment under appeal has extended the declaratory relief granted in the Kavirajan case to retired employees as well. 7.3 In Ghanshyam Dass, in para 12 and 13, it has been held as follows: “12. In K.I. Shephard (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court directed that each of the transferee banks should take over the employees who had been excluded from employment under the amalgamation schemes of the banks on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation and further directed that such employees, who were taken over, would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks. This Court further found that some of the excluded employees had not come to Court and held that there was no justification to penalize them for not having litigated and that they too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners in that case. There was, therefore, a clear direction in the judgment of this Court in K.I. Shephard (supra) that the excluded employees, who had not approached the Court, shall also be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners in that case were entitled under the judgment of this Court. In the present case, as we have seen, the Central Administrative Tribunal has not directed in its order dated 07.07.1992 in O.A. No. 1455 of 1991 that the benefits of the order would also be extended to those who had not approached the Tribunal. 13. In the present case, as we have seen, the Central Administrative Tribunal has not directed in its order dated 07.07.1992 in O.A. No. 1455 of 1991 that the benefits of the order would also be extended to those who had not approached the Tribunal. 13. The principle laid down in K.I. Shephard (supra) that it is not necessary for every person to approach the court for relief and it is the duty of the authority to extend the benefit of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek relief would apply only in the following circumstances: a) where the order is made in a petition filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all similarly situated employees; b) where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief which is intended to apply to all employees in a particular category, irrespective of whether they are parties to the litigation or not; c) where an order or rule of general application to employees is quashed without any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to the petitioners before the court; and d) where the court expressly directs that the relief granted should be extended to those who have not approached the court.” 7.4 In Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 663 , the Supreme Court has further held that once the retirement order is set aside, denying back wages on the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ is unavailable. Juxtaposing the circumstances of the case, we notice that on the principle of law, the retirement of the subject employees is contrary to declaratory relief and illegal. The retirement orders do not stand the scrutiny of law to deny back wages to retired employees. 8. To sum up, Kavirajan’s case is a declaratory judgment and has the features of a judgment in rem. The ratio in the Arvind Kumar Srivastava case is applicable in all fours to the case on hand. The denial or declaratory relief to only one segment of employees would be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, for the reasons we have recorded in the preceding paragraphs, the retired employees are entitled to the reliefs as granted by the judgment under appeal. The denial or declaratory relief to only one segment of employees would be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, for the reasons we have recorded in the preceding paragraphs, the retired employees are entitled to the reliefs as granted by the judgment under appeal. We do not see any reason to take a different view than the conclusions recorded in the judgment under appeal. Cross Objection Nos.136 & 180/2015 9. The Cross Objections claim the balance of 50% back wages as compensation from the Beverages Corporation. In exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of a Writ Court, the learned Single Judge examined each of the circumstances to mould the relief. We may hasten to add that while agreeing with the retired employees' main argument, all relevant circumstances are noted in the judgment under appeal. For limiting the compensation to 50% of back wages, the same approach is adopted by the learned Single Judge. Having accepted the consideration on the first limb of the judgment, we accept the second limb restricting the compensation to 50% of back wages and confirm the findings. The Writ Appeals and Cross Objections are dismissed accordingly.