JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the order dated 19th December, 2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No.1038 of 2012 (Annexure-6 to the paper book) has been assailed, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order dated 17th January, 2012 passed by the Administrative Authority, as appended as Annexure-5 to the paper book, by which the claim of the writ-petitioner for the pensionary benefit has been refused to be granted on the ground that writ-petitioner is not completing the qualifying period of service as on 1st August, 1985, the day when his service was absorbed. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to be enumerated, reads as under: The writ-petitioner was initially appointed as a Compounder on 30th December, 1976 under the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization, Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy, Government of India (in short CMLWO) and worked up to 31st December, 1986, although the CMLWO was abolished from 1st October, 1986 and merged with different subsidiaries of Coal India Limited. Further, under the rules, the employees who had completed more than 9 years 9 months service under the Central Government i.e., in CMLWO, before the abolition/transfer/merger into the subsidiary of Coal India Limited, were given the benefit of pro-rata pensionary benefits for the service rendered under the Government of India. However, the respondents have not granted this benefit and therefore, a large number of employees of erstwhile CMLWO have sought legal redressal by filing O.A. No.804 of 2010 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna which was disposed of on 9th September, 2011 by directing the respondent no.2 i.e., the Officer on Special Duty, Government of India, to decide the matter passing a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondent no.2 passed order dated 17th January, 2012 rejecting the claim of the writ-petitioner for pro-rata pension. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 17th January, 2012, the writ-petitioner has challenged the same by filing O.A. No.1038 of 2012 before the learned Tribunal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19th December, 2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondent no.2 passed order dated 17th January, 2012 rejecting the claim of the writ-petitioner for pro-rata pension. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 17th January, 2012, the writ-petitioner has challenged the same by filing O.A. No.1038 of 2012 before the learned Tribunal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19th December, 2016. The ground has been taken in the writ petition that the learned Tribunal had not considered the case of the writ-petitioner in right perspective as Section 37 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was totally ignored. As per Rule 37(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short the “Pension Rules, 1972”), the writ-petitioner might have joined Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 1st August, 1985 on absorption but in view of the explanation to Rule 37(1) of the Pension Rules, 1972, the immediate absorption would not be the date of absorption. It is not in dispute that the writ-petitioner gave his option for joining Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short BCCL) on 14th April, 1987 which was accepted on 16th July, 1987, so the date of absorption will be 16th July, 1987 and as well as the date on which the writ-petitioner shall be deemed to have been retired from the Central Government Service. 3. It appears from the factual aspect, as referred hereinabove, that the writ-petitioner has joined his service under the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization as a Compounder on 30th December, 1976 while he was working as such, the Central Government has taken a decision by way of executive instruction initially by which the services of the writ-petitioner will stand transferred to the cadres of respective coal companies w.e.f. 1st August, 1985 leaving it open for the concerned employee to furnish their options for their absorption in the different subsidiary companies of the Coal India Limited. 3.1 The claim of the writ-petitioner for pension has been rejected vide order dated 17th January, 2012 on the ground that he has not completed 9 years 9 months permanent service before his transfer as referred in the communication dated 24th July, 2002. 3.2 The writ-petitioner, being aggrieved with the said decision, has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3.1 The claim of the writ-petitioner for pension has been rejected vide order dated 17th January, 2012 on the ground that he has not completed 9 years 9 months permanent service before his transfer as referred in the communication dated 24th July, 2002. 3.2 The writ-petitioner, being aggrieved with the said decision, has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondents have been called upon and the written statement was filed, wherein the ground was taken by making reference of the Executive Instruction as contained in the letter dated 26th July, 1985 annexing it to the written statement, whereby and whereunder the services of the employees working in all the Hospitals, including the Hospital where the applicant was employed as Compounder, were transferred to the Coal India Ltd. w.e.f. 1st August, 1985. 3.3 The learned Tribunal on accepting the aforesaid version of the respondent-Union of India and after having found that the writ-petitioner had not completed 9 years 9 months service as on 1st August, 1985, has refused to interfere with the impugned decision, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner has submitted by pointing out the infirmities committed by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order. According to him the Executive Instruction although was issued on 26th July, 1985 fixing the cutoff date of 1st August, 1985 but subsequent thereto the Central Government has come out with the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund (Repeal) Act, 1986 (in short the “Repeal Act, 1986”), wherein provision was stipulated under sub-Section (2) of Section 1 fixing 1st October, 1986 as the appointed date from which the provisions of the Repeal Act shall come into force. As a consequence of the notification, the Coal Mines Welfare Organization was seized to function from 1st October, 1986. 4.1 It has been contended by referring to the communication dated 22nd September, 1986, as has been brought on record by the respondent-Union of India in this proceeding, although, the said communication dated 22nd September, 1986 was not brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal, wherein condition has been stipulated that full time employees of the Coal Mines Welfare Organization will also stand transferred to the cadre of the respective Coal Companies w.e.f. 1st October, 1986 with certain conditions as referred under 3(a), (b) and (c). 4.2 Learned counsel, therefore, has submitted that in view of the statutory provision as contained under the Repeal Act, 1986, the cutoff date will be treated to be 1st October, 1986 and not as 1st August, 1985 as was based upon the decision taken by the authority in the executive side as contained in the letter dated 26th July, 1985. 4.3 The contention has been raised that once the Act has come which has got statutory force over and above the executive instruction and, hence, the cut off date of 1st October, 1986 will be treated to have statutory force and the services of the employees who have rendered their services in the Organization will be treated to be up to 1st October, 1986 under the Organization and not 1st August, 1985. 4.4 According to the learned counsel, the writ-petitioner has already completed the service of 9 years 9 months as on 1st October, 1986 but in complete ignorance of the same, the authority while passing the order dated 17th January, 2012 has not followed the statutory command as contained in the Repeal Act, 1986, rather, the decision is based upon the executive instruction dated 26th July, 1985 and, therefore, the decision refusing the benefit of pensionary benefit to be paid in favour of the writ-petitioner vide order dated 17th January, 2012 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4.5 The contention has also been made that although the competent authority of the respondent concern had filed written statement but the fact about the Repeal Act, 1986 was suppressed, rather, instead of the statutory provision, the reference of the letter dated 26th July, 1985 has been made which led the learned Tribunal to pass the order accepting the reason of the authority which was based upon the communication dated 26th July, 1985 and admitting the fact as on 1st August, 1985, since, the writ petitioner had not completed the continuous service of 9 years 9 months, rejected the aforesaid benefit to be paid in favour of the writ-petitioner. 4.6 It has been contended that if the reference of Repeal Act would have been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal, then the Tribunal would have been in a position to consider the effect of the Repeal Act, 1986 vis-à-vis the decision of the authority as contained in letter dated 26th July, 1985. 4.6 It has been contended that if the reference of Repeal Act would have been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal, then the Tribunal would have been in a position to consider the effect of the Repeal Act, 1986 vis-à-vis the decision of the authority as contained in letter dated 26th July, 1985. 4.7 Learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid premise has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal needs to be interfered with by quashing and setting aside the order dated 17th January, 2012. 5. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel has argued on the basis of the counter affidavit which was filed in the light of the order dated 13th October, 2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5.1 The learned A.S.G.I. is fair enough to submit that the Repeal Act, 1986 has not been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal. He has submitted on the basis of Annexure-3 dated 22nd September, 1986, wherein the reference of the Repeal Act, 1986 is there and its effect as under paragraph 3 thereof. He has also referred the statutory requirement for the pensionary benefit as referred in the communication dated 24th July, 2002 (Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit). 5.2 The learned A.S.G.I. in view of the Annexure-3 and Annexure-5 has submitted that the learned Tribunal has decided the issue in absence of these documents and putting reliance upon the letter dated 26th July, 1985. 6. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ-petitioner has submitted by referring to Annexure-3 and 5 that now the effect of Repeal Act, 1986 will have prevailing effect upon the communication dated 26th July, 1985 and as such the cut off date of rendering the services by the writ-petitioner in the organization will be 1st October, 1986 and, since, the writ-petitioner has joined his service on 30th December, 1976, therefore, he has completed 9 years 9 months permanent service as on 1st October, 1986. Hence in view of Annexure-5 dated 24th July, 2002, the writ-petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefit in terms of the notification no F-38(4)-OD(A) SO dated 8th August, 1980. 7. Hence in view of Annexure-5 dated 24th July, 2002, the writ-petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefit in terms of the notification no F-38(4)-OD(A) SO dated 8th August, 1980. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order. 8. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ-petitioner was appointed as Compounder on 30th December, 1976 under the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization (hereinafter to be referred as the Organization) and while he was working under the Organization, a decision was taken initially, by way of issuance of Executive Instruction as contained in the letter dated 26th July, 1985, whereby and whereunder a decision was taken by the authorities that all the employees of the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization including the CHS personnel and all casual/work charged staff would stand transferred to the cadres of the respective coal companies we.f. 1st August, 1985. Instructions regarding their absorption, options etc. are being issued separately. 9. The aforesaid executive instruction, does clarify that after 1st August, 1985, there was no existence of the Organization and the services of the writ-petitioner and similarly situated persons had been decided to be transferred to the respective coal companies. The writ-petitioner had given option for absorption of his service in the BCCL and started discharging his duty. He was superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31st March, 2013. The writ-petitioner has made claim before the authorities concerned for extending the pensionary benefit. 10. The executive instruction, although was issued on 26th July, 1985 but immediately thereafter the Repeal Act, 1986 had been enacted for repealment of the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1947 as would appear from the communication dated 22nd September, 1986 as appended as Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Union of India. It further appears that the Repeal Act, 1986 contains a provision under sub-Section (2) of Section (1) under which 1st October, 1986 has been notified as appointed date from which the provisions of Repeal Act, 1986 would come into force and as consequence of the notification, the Coal Mines Welfare Organization was seized to function from 1st October, 1986. It further appears that the Repeal Act, 1986 contains a provision under sub-Section (2) of Section (1) under which 1st October, 1986 has been notified as appointed date from which the provisions of Repeal Act, 1986 would come into force and as consequence of the notification, the Coal Mines Welfare Organization was seized to function from 1st October, 1986. The condition stipulated therein as referred in paragraph 2 shows that the scheme and institutions run by Coal Mines Welfare Organization together with connected staff will stand transferred to Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries and Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. as the case may be w.e.f. 1st October, 1986. The further decision as would appear from paragraph 3 of the communication dated 22nd September, 1986 is that all the full time employees of Coal Mines Welfare Organization will also stand transferred to the cadres of respective Coal Companies w.e.f. 1st October, 1986 with the terms and conditions as regards their opting for Government/Companies service rules. The content of the communicated dated 22nd September, 1986 reads as under : GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF COAL … NO: 11021/6/86-CSN New Delhi, dated 22nd September, 1986 To, 1. The Chairman, Coal India Limited, 10, Netaji Subha Road, Calcutta. 2. The Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner, CMWO, Jagjivan Nagar. Dhanbad. 3. The Chairman/Managing Director, Singereni Collieries Company Ltd., P.O. Kothagudem Collieries, Distt. Khauam (A.P.) Subject: Abolition of Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organisation-Transfer of its activities to Coal India Ltd. and its subsidiaries etc. Orders regarding. …. Sir, The Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1947 has been repealed by the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund (Repeal) Act, 1986. As required under sub-section (2) of section (1) of the Repeal Act, 1986, 1st October, 86 has been notified as the appointed date from which provisions of the Repeal Act shall come into force. As a consequence of the notification, the Coal Mines Welfare Organisation will cease to function from 1st October, 1986. 2. The schemes and institutions run by Coal Mines Welfare Organisation together with connected staff will stand transferred to Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries and Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., as the case may be, with effect from 1st October, 1986 indicated in the Annexure. 3. 2. The schemes and institutions run by Coal Mines Welfare Organisation together with connected staff will stand transferred to Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries and Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., as the case may be, with effect from 1st October, 1986 indicated in the Annexure. 3. All the regular full-time employees of Coal Mines Welfare Organization will also stand transferred to the cadres of respective Coal Companies with effect from 1.10.1986 with following terms and conditions as regards their opting for Government/Companies service rules. a. Permanent absorption in the service of the coal company concerned with effect from 1st October, 1986 (forenoon). Employee opting for such absorption will receive the same terminal and other benefits for their Government service prior to absorption in Coal Companies as have been allowed to the staff of the Regional Hospitals/Central Hospitals of the Coal Mines Welfare Organization similarly transferred in 1981-1983, 1985 to the Coal Companies, vide letters quoted in the margin. b. Retention of Govt. service : Employee opting to retain Govt. service will be declared surplus and dealt with under the Surplus Cell Scheme of the Department of Personnel and Training. c. Voluntary Retirement : Only such employees as are eligible for seeking voluntary retirement under the rules, will have the option of seeking such retirement. Details of options as regards pay etc. on absorption in the service of the coal companies will be intimated to each employee by the company concerned separately. Employees would be asked to exercise any one of the options listed above within 30 days of receipt of the above details from the coal companies. Those who opt for permanent absorption will be deemed to have been so absorbed, with effect from 1.10.1986 (fore-noon). Others will be treated as on deputation without deputation allowance with effect from 1.10.1986 till the date they are recalled and declared surplus or allowed to retire voluntarily as the case may be. During the deputation period they will receive pay and allowances which they would have received in Government service but for such deputation. 4. A Cell with an Officer on Special Duty as its head will function at Dhanbad to attend to post-abolition work. The supporting staff for the Cell will be provided by the Coal Companies on loan basis from among the Coal Mines Welfare Organisation's staff who will be transferred to them. Orders regarding transfer of assets and liabilities etc. 4. A Cell with an Officer on Special Duty as its head will function at Dhanbad to attend to post-abolition work. The supporting staff for the Cell will be provided by the Coal Companies on loan basis from among the Coal Mines Welfare Organisation's staff who will be transferred to them. Orders regarding transfer of assets and liabilities etc. and their valuation etc. will follow. Yours faithfully, (R.S. SHIVANI ) DIRECTOR 11. It also requires to refer herein the Annexure-5 appended to the counter affidavit dated 24th July, 2002 which has been issued in terms of the direction as contained in the letter dated 23rd February, 2002, whereby and whereunder it was communicated by taking conscious decision that the services of all permanent employees, who have rendered 9 years and 9 months permanent service before their transfer to Coal Companies from the Ex-Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization, may be reckoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Notification No.F-38 (4)(A)/SO dated 8th August, 1980 amended sub-Rule 3 of Rule 49 of the C.C.S. Pension Rule. For better appreciation, the contents of letter dated 24th July, 2002 is quoted as under : No.49012/2002-PRW Government of India Department of Coal New Delhi the 24th July, 2002 SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY OFFICE OF THE OSD, DHANBAD Subject:- Regularization Confirmation of the services of the employees of Ex-CMLWO. I am directed to refer to your Office Letter No. OSD/SO(W)/Pension & Benefits/2002/61 dated 23rd Feb., 2002 on the above subject and to say that the services of all permanent employees who have rendered more than 9 years 9 months Government Service before their transfer to coal companies from the Ex-Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization may be reckoned for purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Notification No.F-38(4)-(A)/SO dated 8th August, 1980 amended sub-rule 3 of Rule 49 of the C.C.S. Pension Rules. Yours Faithfully. (SANJAY BAHADUR) DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA Copy to: Shri B. Bhattacharya, Special officer (Welfare) Office of the OSD Dhanbad 12. Yours Faithfully. (SANJAY BAHADUR) DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA Copy to: Shri B. Bhattacharya, Special officer (Welfare) Office of the OSD Dhanbad 12. The writ-petitioner in the light of the premise of Repeal Act, 1986 treating himself to be under the service of the organization up till 1st October, 1986 has claimed for pensionary benefit since the writ-petitioner on 1st October, 1986 has completed 9 years 9 months of continuous service under the Organization and in view of the decision taken by the Central Government as under communication dated 24th July, 2002 as appended as Annexure-5 but the said claim has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17th January, 2012 on the ground that cut off date will be 1st August, 1985 on the basis of the Executive Instruction dated 26th July, 1985. 13. The question which requires consideration in this case is as to whether the Executive Instruction, wherein the cut off date of 1st August, 1985 has been fixed will prevail upon the Repeal Act, 1986 whereby and whereunder the cut off date of 1st October, 1986 has been fixed or cut off date as decided by virtue of the Repeal Act, 1986. Since the Repeal Act, 1986 has been notified on 1st October, 1986, as per the provision of sub-Section (2) of Section (1), will have the binding effect upon the authority for consideration of case of one or the other employees working under the organization for extending the benefit of pension on completion of 9 years and 9 months service which was fixed as a requirement. Since both the issues are interlinked, as such, same are discussed and being decided simultaneously. 14. The law is well settled that the Executive Instruction is having no overriding effect upon the statutory provision. The Executive Instruction is to be issued by the Executive Authority in the light of the provision of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of the India in order to deal with the official business where the statute is not there. However, the moment the statute will be enacted, the effect of the Executive Instruction will have no bearing. The Executive Instruction is to be issued by the Executive Authority in the light of the provision of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of the India in order to deal with the official business where the statute is not there. However, the moment the statute will be enacted, the effect of the Executive Instruction will have no bearing. Although, there is no dispute that even when the Statute is there, the Executive Instruction can be issued by the authority in exercise of power conferred under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of the India but the Executive Instruction so issued is only to supplement the statutory provision not to sub-plant it as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 . The paragraph 17 of the said judgment reads as under : “17. The executive instruction can supplement a statute or cover areas to which the statute does not extend, but it cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions or whittle down their effect. (Vide State of M.P. v. G.S. Dall & Flour Mills [1992 Supp (1) SCC 150].) 19. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1967 SC 1910 ] held as under : (AIR p. 1914, para 7) “7. … It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.” (emphasis added) 15. This Court is proceeding to examine the right of the writ-petitioner regarding the claim of the pensionary benefit whether the same will be on the basis of the Executive Instruction dated 26th July, 1985 or on the basis of the Repeal Act, 1986. In the Executive Instruction dated 26th July, 1985, the cut off date of 1st August, 1985 has been fixed for the purpose of counting the period of service rendered by one or the other employee under the Organization. But subsequent thereto the Parliament has come with an Act known as the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund (Repeal) Act, 1986, whereby and whereunder the Organization has been seized to function from 1st October, 1986. 16. But subsequent thereto the Parliament has come with an Act known as the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund (Repeal) Act, 1986, whereby and whereunder the Organization has been seized to function from 1st October, 1986. 16. The further disputed fact in this case is that the option had been given by the writ-petitioner on 14th April, 1987 i.e., after coming into effect of the Repeal Act, 1986. The date when the Repeal Act, 1986 was notified i.e., the 1st October, 1986 under the statutory provision as contained under Section (2) Section 1 thereof, therefore, on or after 1st October, 1986 the effect of the Executive Instruction dated 26th July, 1985 will be said to have no effect. The writ-petitioner since has given option on 14th April, 1987 for absorption of his service in the BCCL and accordingly, his service has been absorbed but the question herein which is the core of the issue is that the period of 9 years 9 months will be counted by taking cut off date of 1st August, 1985 or 1st October, 1986. 17. Since, we have already come to the conclusion that the effect of the Repeal Act, 1986 will have binding effect upon the administrative functionaries and, as such, the writ-petitioner since has opted for his absorption in service on 14th April, 1987 therefore, the writ-petitioner will be treated in the service up to 1st October, 1986 under the Organization. The matter would have been different, if the writ-petitioner would have made option prior to coming into effect of the Repeal Act, 1986 and his option if accepted then it could have been said that no benefit of the statutory provision will be extended but that is not the case herein. 18. This Court after having discussed the factual aspect along with the legal issues and coming back to the order dated 17th January, 2012 wherefrom it is evident that the authority concern has decided the issue by taking into consideration the cut-off date as provided under the Executive Instruction dated 26th July, 1985 and has counted the period of service rendered by the writ-petitioner under the Organization up to 1st August, 1985 basis upon which it has been found by the authority concerned that the writ-petitioner has not completed 9 years 9 months continuous service and, hence, the claim of pension has been denied. 19. 19. The requirement of 9 years 9 months service as contained in the communication dated 24th July, 2002 as quoted and referred hereinabove which has been brought to the notice by the respondent—Union of India itself. Since, the organization has been seized to function from 1st October, 1986 and the services of the regular employees stand transferred to the cadres of the respective Coal Companies w.e.f. 1st October, 1986 as per the paragraph 3 of the communicated dated 22nd September, 1986, therefore, the period of service which is to be reckoned of the writ-petitioner will be up to 1st October, 1986. The respondent has admitted that as on 1st October, 1986, the writ-petitioner has completed 9 years 9 months of service. 20. This Court, on appreciation of the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, has found that the concerned respondent, who has filed written-statement has not come with the clean hands by bringing to the notice of the learned Tribunal about the Repeal Act, 1986 or the communication dated 22nd September, 1986, as appended as Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit or communication dated 24th July, 2002, as appended as Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit, rather only the Executive Instruction dated 26th July, 1985 had been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal basis upon which the learned Tribunal has affirmed the view taken by the Administrative Authority as was taken in the impugned order dated 17th January, 2012. 21. This Court while exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India is required to judicially review the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in view of the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 , whereby and whereunder the power of judicial review has been conferred to the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. This Court while exercising the aforesaid power is of the view that if the respondent-authority would have brought the fact to the notice about the Repeal Act, 1986 as has been brought by filing counter affidavit before this Court, the learned Tribunal would have taken the different view based upon the statutory mandate but in absence of the said document, the Tribunal has passed the order on the basis of the Executive Instruction dated 26th July, 1985. 22. This Court is of the view that this order should have been passed on the basis of the statutory command as contained in the Repeal Act, 1986 and, therefore, deems it fit and proper to criticize the conduct of the authority concern who has sworn the affidavit by way of written statement in not making the correct fact before the Tribunal. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, is of the view that the order dated 19th December, 2016 passed in O.A. No. 1038 of 2022 needs to be interfered with. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 23. This Court has also thought to remit the matter back before the learned Tribunal for passing appropriate order on the basis of the document which has been brought to the notice of this Court, but considering the fact that it is a case of pensionary benefit, therefore, deem it fit and proper to decide the issue here itself as the writ-petitioner has already retired on 31st March, 2013 and, therefore, is of the view that instead of remitting the matter to the Tribunal, the matter is to be decided finally here before this Court only. 24. In consequence thereof, the communication dated 17th January, 2012 is also quashed and set aside. 25. The competent authority of the respondent is directed to take a fresh decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 27. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.