JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Shri Anupras Singh, learned Counsel representing Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Shri Vinayak Saxena, learned Counsel representing Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ''SGPGIMS') and learned State Counsel appearing for the State of U.P. 2. By instituting the proceedings of this Special Appeal, the appellant-petitioner questions the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No. 2001877 of 2015 has been dismissed and her claim for grant of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme after being appointed in the Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'RML') has not been acceded to. 3. Impeaching the order passed by learned Single Judge, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that the construction/interpretation sought to be given by learned Single Judge to the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is not tenable for the reason that the said Government Order has been issued for conferring certain benefits to the retired employees and accordingly, it has to be read and construed in a manner which farthers the benefit flowing from it rather than curtailing the same. Further submission made on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that it is the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 issued by the State Government in the Finance Department which holds the field for the reason that it embodies and expresses the general policy decision of the State Government applicable to all rather than the Government Order dated 29.08.2014, which has been issued by the Medical Education Department, that too without consultation with the Finance Department. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel representing the appellant-petitioner that in case of beneficial legislation which will include beneficial subordinate legislation, if two interpretations/constructions are possible, the interpretation which is in favour of the beneficiary, is to be adopted and not the other one. 4. Submission, thus, is that if the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is interpreted in view of the aforesaid legal propositions, the only feasible conclusion which may be drawn is that the appellant-petitioner will be entitled to be given the benefit of Old Pension Scheme after her appointment in the RML Institute. 5. 4. Submission, thus, is that if the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is interpreted in view of the aforesaid legal propositions, the only feasible conclusion which may be drawn is that the appellant-petitioner will be entitled to be given the benefit of Old Pension Scheme after her appointment in the RML Institute. 5. Opposing the prayers made in this Special Appeal, learned Counsel representing the RML Institute as also the learned State Counsel have, in one voice, submitted that the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is clear which does not require any interpretation in a manner other than which is apparent from a plain reading of the contents thereof. It has been argued on their behalf that admittedly the posts in RML Institute are non-pensionable neither the services in RML Institute are pensionable, hence, the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 does not confer any right upon the appellant-petitioner to claim the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. 6. Further Submission is that the benefit of Old Pension Scheme will be available only to an employee, who on his new appointment after the New Pension Scheme was promulgated, is working against a pensionable post or in a pensionable service and such an employee is appointed, after promulgation of the New Pension Scheme, against a pensionable post or in a pensionable service. Drawing attention of the Court to the date on which the RML Institute came into existence i.e., in June, 2005, it has been argued that no service or post in RML Institute is pensionable, accordingly, the services rendered by the appellant-petitioner on her appointment in RML Institute after having resigned from service at SGPGIMS being non-pensionable, she shall not be entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. 7. It has, thus, been urged by the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel representing RML Institute that the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsels in the respective parties and have also perused the records available before us on this Special Appeal. 9. Before we advert to the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we may note certain facts which are essential for appropriate resolution of the issues involved in this case. 10. The appellant-petitioner was appointed on the Post of Sister Grade-II in the year 1996 at SGPGIMS. 9. Before we advert to the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we may note certain facts which are essential for appropriate resolution of the issues involved in this case. 10. The appellant-petitioner was appointed on the Post of Sister Grade-II in the year 1996 at SGPGIMS. She continued to work on the said post which is, admittedly, pensionable. In the meantime, an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Chief Nursing Officer, pursuant to which the appellant-petitioner made her application and on selection, she was appointed by means of an order dated 08.12.2010 on the post of Chief Nursing Officer at RML Institute. In pursuance of the appointment order dated 08.12.2010, she submitted her joining on 11.01.2011 on probation for a period of one year. After completion of her probation on the post of Chief Nursing Officer at RML Institute, she was confirmed on the said post by means of an order dated 31.05.2012 with effect from 11.01.2012. She is, thus, working at present on the post of Chief Nursing Officer as a confirmed employee at RML Institute. 11. It appears that the appellant filed a Writ Petition bearing no. 897 of 2015 before this Court with the prayer inter alia to issue directions to the authorities of RML Institute for giving her the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court by means of an order dated 22.06.2015 whereby a direction was given to the Director of Institute to consider and decide the representation of the appellant-petitioner. 12. In compliance of the said order dated 22.06.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 897 of 2015, the Director considered the representation made by the appellant-petitioner, however, the said representation did not find favour with the Director which was rejected by means of an order dated 17.08.2015. 12. In compliance of the said order dated 22.06.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 897 of 2015, the Director considered the representation made by the appellant-petitioner, however, the said representation did not find favour with the Director which was rejected by means of an order dated 17.08.2015. We may note at this juncture itself that the Director while passing the order dated 17.08.2015 recites that the matter relating to grant of benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the appellant-petitioner was referred to the State Government, which apprised the RML Institute by means of the Government Order/Letter dated 29.08.2014 that since the Institute was established after 01.04.2005, hence, no post available or created in the Institute is covered by the Old Pension Scheme and accordingly, in terms of the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 the appellant-petitioner shall not be entitled to be given the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. Challenging the said order dated 17.08.2015, the appellant-petitioner instituted the proceedings of Writ-A No. 2001877 of 2015 which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge by means of the order dated 17.02.2022 which has been assailed before us in this Special Appeal. 13. The sole question which falls for our consideration, in this case is as to in what manner the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 issued by the State Government in the Department of Finance is to be construed and interpreted and depending on the construction of the said Government Order as to whether the appellant-petitioner will be entitled to be given the benefit of Old Pension Scheme which was prevalent to the State Government employees as also the employees of various autonomous institutions/bodies functioning under the State Government prior to 01.04.2005. 14. The New Pension Scheme, was promulgated by the State Government by means of a notification dated 28.03.2005, according to which, the State Government had taken a decision to introduce New Pension Scheme which is based on the employee's contribution. The said Pension Scheme in terms of the notification dated 28.03.2005 has been made applicable with effect from 01.04.2005; meaning thereby that the State Government employees or the employees appointed in autonomous institutions of the State Government on or after 01.04.2005 shall be governed by the Pension Scheme which is contributory in nature and such employees shall not be governed by the Old Pension Scheme which was majorly based on the contribution made by the State alone. 15. 15. It is not in dispute that the State Government took a decision to establish Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences in June, 2005. Earlier, it was run and managed by a State owned society registered under the Societies Registration Act. However, in the year 2015 by means of enacting Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 2015, the Institute functions under the prescriptions available in the said enactment passed by the State Legislature. However, as observed above, it is not in dispute that RML Institute was established after 01.04.2005, the date with effect from which the New Pension Scheme has been introduced. 16. To remove certain confusions the State Government in the Department of Finance issued a Government Order on 16.09.2010 which formulates the conclusions on the queries which had arisen on account of implementation of the New Pension Scheme. The queries formulated in the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 are embodied in clause 2 of the said Government Order which is extracted herein below:- ^^2- for foHkkx esa bl fcUnq ij Li"Vhdj.k iznku fd;s tkus laca/kh lanHkZ izkIr gksrs jgs gSa fd ,sls deZpkjh tks jkT; ljdkj dh fdlh isa'ku;qDr lsok esa fnukad 01 vizSy] 2005 ds iwoZ fu;qDr gks pqds Fks rFkk fnukad 01 vizSy] 2005 dks vFkok mlds mijkUr jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu fdlh vU; lsok@laoxZ esa isa'ku;qDr in ij fu;qDr gksrs gSa] rks mUgsa iqjkuh isa'ku ;kstuk] tks fnukad 01 vizSy] 2005 ds iqoZ ykxw Fkh] ls vkPNkfnr ekuk tk;sxk vFkok uà isa'ku ;kstuk lsA** 17. The clarification to the said query can be found in Clause 3 of the said Government Order 16.09.2010 which is also being extracted herein below for reference:- ^^3- bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd 'kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ,sls lHkh deZpkjh ftUgksaus jkT; ljdkj dh vFkok ,sls leLr 'kklu ds fu;a=.k/khu Lok;rlk'kh laLFkkvksa vkSj 'kklu ls lgk;rk izkIr f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa ftuesa jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dh isa'ku ;kstuk dh Hkkafr isa'ku ;kstuk ykxw Fkh vkSj mudk foRr iks"k.k jkT; ljdkj dh lesfdr fu/kh ls fd;k tkrk gS] dh isa'ku;qDr lsok esa fnukad 01 vizSy] 2005 ds iqoZ ;ksxnku fd;k Fkk rFkk fnukad 01 vizSy] 2005 dks vFkok mlds i'pkr~ jkT; ljdkj dh vFkok 'kklu dh fu;a=.kk/khu mDr mfYYkf[kr Lok;rlk'kh laLFkkvksa vkSj 'kklu ls lgk;rk izkIr f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa dh] isa'ku;qDr lsok esa viuh iqoZ lsok ls dk;ZeqDr gksdj vFkok rduhdh R;kx&i= nsdj fu;qDr gksrs gSa] rks mlh isa'ku ;kstuk ls vkPNkafnr ekus tk;saxs ftls isa'ku ;kstuk ls os fnukad 01 vizSy] 2005 ds iqoZ vkPNkafnr FksA** 18. What we can gather from Clause 2 of the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is that the Government was clarifying as to whether such employees who are appointed in a pensionable service prior to 01.04.2005 and are thereafter again appointed after 01.04.2005 in any other service/cadre under the State Government against pensionable post, will they be entitled to be covered by the Old Pension Scheme or they shall be governed by the New Pension Scheme. Clarifying the same, Clause 3 of the Government Order clearly provides that those employees, who were appointed in a State Government Service/Post which was pensionable prior to 01.04.2005 and are again appointed against any other post or cadre or service of the State Government or under autonomous institutions, having been relieved from their earlier posting or having resigned from the earlier post in some pensionable service after 01.04.2005, shall also be governed by the Old Pension Scheme. 19. The reason given by the Director while rejecting the claim of the appellant-petitioner in the order dated 17.08.2015 is based on a Government Order dated 29.08.2014, which we will now examine. The Government Order dated 29.08.2014 has not been issued by the Finance Department of the State Government; neither does it anywhere mention that it was issued with the concurrence of or in consultation with the Finance Department. The Government Order dated 29.08.2014 has not been issued by the Finance Department of the State Government; neither does it anywhere mention that it was issued with the concurrence of or in consultation with the Finance Department. It is rather a Government Order issued by the Medical Education Department which is the Administrative Department of the RML Institute. The Medical Education Department, thus, while issuing the Government Order dated 29.08.2014 has attempted to interpret the Government Order issued by the Finance Department on 16.09.2010 and has concluded that since the post sanctioned in RML Institute are not pensionable as such any employee appointed in RML Institute after 01.04.2005 having been relieved from his earlier posting or having resigned from his earlier posting where he was working even against pensionable post, will not be covered by New Pension Scheme. 20. In the context of the aforesaid Government Order dated 29.08.2014 issued by the Medical Education Department, we may refer to the Government Order issued by the Finance Department, dated 16.09.2010 again. In Clauses 2 and 3 of the said Government Order dated 16.09.2010 the word isa'ku;qDr in@isa'ku;qDr lsok (Pensionable Post/Pensionable Service) occur. The said provision contained in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 can be interpreted possibly in two ways. 21. The first interpretation which may be given to the said phrase of the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is that the words ''Pensionable Post' and ''Pensionable Service' are to qualify the service or post against which an employee was working prior to 01.04.2005 and also against a post or service where he/she is appointed after 01.04.2005. There is no ambiguity in such an interpretation, however, if we read the said Government Order further what we find is that the words ''Pensionable Post' and ''Pensionable Service' can be read to mean the post/service covered only by the Old Pension Scheme. Thus, as observed above, it may be one of the possible interpretations. However, the other possible interpretation of Clauses 2 and 3 of the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 may be that the word ''Pensionable' qualifying the words ''Post' and ''Service' in both the Clauses will not be confined to Old Pension Scheme alone. It can be read to include both the Pension Schemes, namely, the Old Pension Scheme which was available prior to 01.04.2005 and the New Pension Scheme which is now available with effect from 01.04.2005. 22. It can be read to include both the Pension Schemes, namely, the Old Pension Scheme which was available prior to 01.04.2005 and the New Pension Scheme which is now available with effect from 01.04.2005. 22. In our opinion, restricting the construction of the words ''Pensionable Service' or ''Pensionable Post' to mean only those posts and services which are covered by the Old Pension Scheme will have the impact of curtailing the benefit of pension to the retired employees or those employees who are to retire in future. It is not that the services and posts created and sanctioned in the RML Institute are not pensionable. The post and services are pensionable though are governed and covered by New Pension Scheme promulgated by means of the notification dated 28.03.2005. 23. Pension to a retired employee, in a sense, is, in fact, a beneficial provision which is provided by the employers not only to provide some financial support to the employees after retirement in lieu of the services which he renders in the best times of his life to the employer but also to take care of the needs of such employees in old age. Accordingly, we find that the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is beneficial in nature and hence, for construing and interpreting such a Government Order we have to consider as to how such beneficial Government Order is to be interpreted. 24. In this regard, we may have reference to certain pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, first of which is, Union of India and Another Versus Pradeep Kumari and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 736 wherein it has been observed that, 'In relation to beneficent legislation, the law is well settled that while construing the provisions of such a legislation the Court should adopt a construction which advances the policy of legislation to extend the benefit rather than a construction which has the effect of curtailing the benefits conferred by it.' 25. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Turf Club Limited Versus Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation, (2014) 9 SCC 657 has observed that the primary rule of interpretation of statutes, though, is the literal rule, however, in case of beneficial legislations the Court has to adopt liberal rule of interpretation to ensure that the benefits are extended to the employees concerned. Para 16 of the said judgment is extracted herein below:- "16. Para 16 of the said judgment is extracted herein below:- "16. The primary rule of interpretation of statutes may be the literal rule, however, in case of beneficial legislations and legislations enacted for the welfare of employees, workmen, this Court has on numerous occasions adopted the liberal rule of interpretation to ensure that the benefits extend to those workers who need to be covered based on the intention of the legislature." 26. In relation to the issue concerning payment of gratuity, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank & Another Versus All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, (2010) 2 SCC 44 , has observed that welfare statutes always receive a liberal construction and further that they are required to be so construed as to secure the relief contemplated by the Statutes. 27. Making reference to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Som Prakash Rekhi Versus Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that welfare benefits such as pension, payment of provident fund and gratuity etc. are in fulfillment of Directive Principles of the State Policy as enshrined in our Constitution, hence, even if two interpretations are permissible to such a provision, the interpretation which furthers the beneficial objects should be preferred. 28. Para 17 of the judgment in the case of Allahabad Bank (supra) is quoted hereunder:- "17. Krishna Iyer, J. in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, stated the principle in his inimitable style that a benignant provision must receive a benignant construction and, even if two interpretations are permissible, that which furthers the beneficial object should be preferred. It has been further observed: (SCC pp. 483-84, para 66) "66. ... We live in a welfare State, in a ''socialist' republic, under a Constitution with profound concern for the weaker classes including workers (Part IV). Welfare benefits such as pensions, payment of provident fund and gratuity are in fulfillment of the directive principles. The payment of gratuity or provident fund should not occasion any deduction from the pension as a ''set-off'. Otherwise, the solemn statutory provisions ensuring provident fund and gratuity become illusory. Pensions are paid out of regard for past meritorious services. The root of gratuity and the foundation of provident fund are different. Each one is a salutary benefaction statutorily guaranteed independently of the other. Otherwise, the solemn statutory provisions ensuring provident fund and gratuity become illusory. Pensions are paid out of regard for past meritorious services. The root of gratuity and the foundation of provident fund are different. Each one is a salutary benefaction statutorily guaranteed independently of the other. Even assuming that by private treaty parties had otherwise agreed to deductions before the coming into force of these beneficial enactments they cannot now be deprivatory. It is precisely to guard against such mischief that the non obstante and overriding provisions are engrafted on these statutes."" 29. From the legal principles discussed above, we are not in doubt that any beneficial provision has to be given a liberal interpretation in a manner that extends and advances the benefits intended to be given to the beneficiary and not otherwise. We are also clear in our mind that in case two interpretations are possible to such a provision, the interpretation which farthers the benefit to the beneficiary has to be preferred and if we examine the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 in the light of these legal principles, we are of the opinion that the same has been interpreted by the Government in the Department of Medical Education by means of the Government Order dated 29.08.2014 in a manner which is not tenable. The words ''Pensionable Service' and ''Pensionable Post' occurring in the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 are thus to be interpreted to mean Post or Service either covered by the Old Pension Scheme or even by the New Pension Scheme. It is not in dispute that the post and services in the RML Institute are covered by the New Pension Scheme. Accordingly, giving restricted meaning to the word ''Pensionable Post/Pensionable Service' as occurring in the Government Order dated 16.09.2010, in our considered opinion, cannot be accepted. 30. In view of the discussions made and reasons given above, we find that the reasons given by the Director while passing the order dated 17.08.2015 are not tenable. 31. The learned Single Judge has also agreed with the interpretation of the Government Order in question as was sought to be given by the State Government in the Department of Medical Education. Hence, we do not find ourselves persuaded to be in agreement with the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge which is under appeal before us. 32. The Special Appeal is thus allowed. 33. Hence, we do not find ourselves persuaded to be in agreement with the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge which is under appeal before us. 32. The Special Appeal is thus allowed. 33. The order dated 17.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 2001877 of 2015 is hereby set aside. The order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the Director, RML Institute and the Government Order dated 29.08.2014 issued by the Stated Government in the Department of Medical Education are also hereby quashed. 34. We further direct that the appellant-petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme while serving the RML Institute as well. 35. There will be no order as to costs.