ORDER : 1. The present appeals emanate from the judgment dated 11.02.2020, wherein and whereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants-employees seeking benefit of pension under G.P.F. Scheme (General Provident Fund Scheme). 2. Learned Advocate for the appellants-employees, Mr. J.V. Japee, has submitted that Respondent-Gujarat Water Supply Sewerage Board and Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation, are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Institute by the Central Government as well as the State Government. He has referred to the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, Government of India and has submitted that by this Office Memorandum, 4th Central Pay Commission recommended that all the G.P.F. Beneficiaries in service on 01.01.1986 should be deemed to have come over the pension scheme. 3. Learned advocate for the appellants-employees, Mr. Japee has submitted that accordingly, the State Government was required to implement this and accordingly, the State Government Employees were granted the pension under the General Provident Fund Scheme, whereas the employees like the present appellants, who were serving in the respondent-Board/corporation, were left out and they are to be treated at par with the employees of the State Government. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Japee for the appellants-employees has referred to the Government Resolution dated 07.01.1998 issued by the Finance Department of State Government, whereby the benefits arising from the 5th Pay Commission were extended to the Government Employees. He has submitted that as per the provisions of that Resolution, particularly, Para 12, the retirement benefits of all the government employees including the present appellants would be governed under the G.P.F. Scheme and not C.P.F. scheme. Learned advocate Mr. Japee has further referred to the board meeting of the Gujarat Water supply and Sewerage Board held on 11.02.1998 and has submitted that in such meeting, the board has adopted that all the employees will be paid the benefits of 5th Pay Commission. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Japee has further referred to the board meeting of the Gujarat Water supply and Sewerage Board held on 11.02.1998 and has submitted that in such meeting, the board has adopted that all the employees will be paid the benefits of 5th Pay Commission. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Japee further referred to the circular dated 04.05.2002 and has submitted that as per the said circular issued by the State Government (Finance Department), the pay scales, which are being conferred to the employees of the State Government, are made applicable to the employees of the Board and hence, respondent-Board as well the Corporation have fell in error in not extending the benefits of G.P.F. Scheme to the appellants-employees. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Japee further stated that the learned Single Judge should have considered these aspects while dealing with the contentions raised by the rival parties in the judgment and he has also referred to the very judgment incorporated by the learned Single Judge in his judgment and has submitted that the judgment would, in fact, reveal that in identical cases, the employees, who were governed by the C.P.F. Scheme, were thereafter, directed by the concerned Courts including the judgment of this Court as well as Supreme Court to be governed by the New General Provident Fund Scheme and accordingly, they are to be conferred the benefits of pension. He has submitted that the employees, by not extending the benefits of pension to the appellants-employees, are suffering huge loss and it is urged that the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, may be required to be quashed and set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw has submitted that the respondent-Board is governed by its own provisions of law (Rules and Regulations). Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that right from inception, when the appellants were appointed in service, they were governed by C.P.F. Scheme and after their retirement, they were all paid the benefits of C.P.F. He has submitted that only those employee, who are appointed by the State Government and thereafter, sent to the respondent-Board, were continued in G.P.F. Scheme as their initial appointment was under the G.P.F. Scheme. However, in the present case, it is submitted that the appellants were initially appointed in C.P.F. Scheme and accordingly, when they were retired, they were granted the funds. However, in the present case, it is submitted that the appellants were initially appointed in C.P.F. Scheme and accordingly, when they were retired, they were granted the funds. He has submitted that the Board never issued any instructions of switching over from C.P.F. Scheme to G.P.F. Scheme since the respondent-Board never adopted the G.P.F. Scheme and all the employees are governed by the C.P.F. Scheme. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has placed reliance on the judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 82 of 2020. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Jani appearing for the Respondents-Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation has adopted the arguments made by the learned advocate Mr. Munshaw. He further submitted that as per the Rules and Regulations of the Board, all the employees are governed by their C.P.F. Schemes and accordingly, he has referred to the definitions as well the clarifications issued in the Rules and Regulations. Learned advocate Mr. Jani has submitted that the writ petition has been filed after a span of more than 5 years, after the petitioner had collected their C.P.F. funds and hence, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Jani further submitted that the corporation has also never adopted the G.P.F. Scheme and the employees, right from the inception i.e., from the date of appointment, are governed by the C.P.F. Scheme and accordingly, when they retired, all the funds are paid to them. Thus, it is urged that the Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained. 10. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 11. On a specific query made by us to the learned advocate Mr. Japee, to show as to whether the respondent-Board or the Corporation has adopted the G.P.F. Scheme, which is applicable to the Government Employees, he is unable to point out any document or justify his claim that the employees, like the present appellants, who are the employees of the board and corporation, were ever brought under the G.P.F. Scheme or the board or corporation has adopted the same. 12. 12. Thus, there is not a single document in the form of circular or administrative instruction, pointing out that the respondent-board or corporation have adopted the G.P.F. Scheme, which is being applicable to the State Government Employees. The respondent- Board/Corporation are statutory entities and they are government by their own Rules and Regulations until and unless they adopt or follow the schemes, issued by the State Government or Central Government, such schemes cannot be imposed upon the statutory bodies like the Board/corporation. 13. All the appellants, right from the inception, were governed by the C.P.F. Scheme, they have also retired. After retirement, they are claiming the pension scheme at par with the Government Employees of the State Government as well as Central Government. The Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987, on which reliance has been placed, issued by the Government of India, will not directly applicable to the respondent-Board/Corporation until they adopt the same and declare their own Rules and Regulations at par with the Office Memorandum or in line with instructions issued by the State Government. 14. The circulars and the Government Resolutions on which the reliance is placed, more particularly, the 04.05.2002, only applies to the adoption of pay scales of the State Government Employees, which would not be applicable to the employees of the Board/Corporation. Similarly, the Resolution dated 07.01.1998, on which the reliance is placed, is in relation to the implementation of 5th Pay Commission in cases of Government Employees. The same would not directly be applicable to the employees of the Corporation/Board, even if the same is applicable, it would not, in any manner, suggest that the employees, who were governed by C.P.F. Scheme, would automatically be switched over to the G.P.F. Scheme. 15. Learned Single Judge, by comprehensive judgment, has dismissed the writ petition. We have found that learned Single Judge has also recorded the findings on the case law cited by the respective parties. At this stage we may incorporate the observations made by the learned Single Judge. “15. In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. S.K. Sharma and others, (2016) 9 SCC 206 , the Supreme Court held as under: “8. At this stage we may incorporate the observations made by the learned Single Judge. “15. In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. S.K. Sharma and others, (2016) 9 SCC 206 , the Supreme Court held as under: “8. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of appellants that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition in 1992 or allowed substantial amendments in 1998 to permit claims made belatedly after decades and after superannuation from the service of the Corporation. Such claims should have been rejected on the ground of delay. In support of this plea reliance was placed upon judgment in the case of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh and Others. In this case the respondents were still in service as the employees of the appellant Corporation when the Regulations of 1992 introduced a pension scheme but they did not exercise option for pension within the stipulated time. Moreover, they also availed of retiral benefits arising out of CPF and gratuity without any protest. This Court held that the respondents on account of failure on their part, could not claim benefit under the pension scheme. Particular reliance was placed upon the following observations at the end of paragraph 35; “.......On the receipt of CPF amount, the relationship between employee and employer ceases to exist without leaving any further legal right or obligation qua each other.” Since most of the respondents in that case also had retired after serving for several years since the enforcement of Regulations of 1992 and had advanced claim for pension after accepting CPF etc., in para 52 this Court counted the delay of about eight years from the introduction of pension scheme in 1992 and held such delay was unreasonable. On that basis it has been urged on behalf of appellants that through amendment made in 1998 the respondents gave up their claim for pension under the Regulations of 1992 and instead claimed pensionary rights by indirectly mounting a challenge to the decision of the State Government evident from letter dated 16.10.1956, merging PEPSU Roadways with the Corporation. On that basis it has been urged on behalf of appellants that through amendment made in 1998 the respondents gave up their claim for pension under the Regulations of 1992 and instead claimed pensionary rights by indirectly mounting a challenge to the decision of the State Government evident from letter dated 16.10.1956, merging PEPSU Roadways with the Corporation. Their claim of being in the employment of State and to have suffered the effect of States Reorganization Act and merger of PEPSU State with the State of Punjab on 01.11.1956 was clearly a claim made after unusual delay of several decades and the High Court should not have condoned such delay. 9. In reply, Mr. S.K. Sharma learned counsel for the respondents advanced arguments in support of the impugned judgment. As per his submissions, even after the transfer of Roadways Department to the Corporation, there was legal necessity of issuing formal orders showing absorption of respondents as employees of Corporation under a valid resolution of the Corporation. He relied upon findings of the High Court that there was no order or resolution for such absorption. 10. On behalf of respondents reliance was placed upon judgment in the case of Vice Chancellor, Utkal University & Ors. v. S.K. Ghosh & Ors. to support the proposition that a corporate body like University acts through formal resolution arrived at in a proper manner by the competent body. The facts of this case were entirely different. The appellant before this Court was Vice- Chancellor of a University who was aggrieved by the High Court judgment interfering with the cancellation of an examination through resolutions of the University Syndicate. The High Court invalidated the resolution for want of proper notice vide agenda for the meeting as well as lack of justification for cancellation of the examination. This Court reversed the judgment of the High Court on both counts. The ratio of the judgment does not help the respondents. 11. Respondents next relied upon judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Nirmal Singh. In this case State of Punjab was aggrieved by impugned judgment of the High Court whereby minor punishment imposed upon Nirmal Singh was set aside. The ratio of the judgment does not help the respondents. 11. Respondents next relied upon judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Nirmal Singh. In this case State of Punjab was aggrieved by impugned judgment of the High Court whereby minor punishment imposed upon Nirmal Singh was set aside. This Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the High Court on a finding that there was no requirement under the rule to grant a personal hearing for imposition of a minor penalty and that the High Court had erred in treating the order of the competent authority as a non-speaking order. This case also is not relevant for deciding the controversy at hand. 12. To meet the allegation of delay, reliance was placed upon S.R. Bhanrale v. Union of India and Ors. The appellant in that case retired as an officer in the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India and received pension immediately on retirement. For no good reasons his other retiral benefits and claims remained unsettled in spite of several representations. After serving the notice under Section 80 CPC and approximately after three years he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. While the matter was pending with this Court, upon directions of the Department, the appellant was paid some of the benefits. At the stage of final hearing, this Court considered the circumstances and observed that in the facts of the case the Union of India was not justified in raising the bar of limitation against the dues of the appellant. It cannot be claimed by way of general rule simply on the basis of aforesaid judgment that in all cases of claim for pension, the plea of delay or limitation cannot be considered by a writ court. Only where the retiral benefits have been wrongly withheld and not paid despite numerous representations and as observed in Para 4 of the aforesaid judgment the delay is not of decade or so the Court may not appreciate a plea of limitation raised by the Government. 13. In the present case admission or declaration made by the Corporation on 30.11.1956 through Order no. 13. In the present case admission or declaration made by the Corporation on 30.11.1956 through Order no. 61 that services of the respondents, i.e., of all temporary employees stood transferred to the Corporation with effect from 16.10.1956 and shall be governed by the new terms and conditions as and when approved by the Corporation was within the knowledge of the respondents and they accepted such orders of the Government and the Corporation from 1956 till their retirement and even thereafter till the enforcement of Regulations of 1992 which led to filing of writ petition by them in 1992. Clearly the respondents acquiesced to the entire situation and accepted their status as employees of the Corporation leading to admissible retiral benefits. In such circumstances, the aforesaid judgment cannot help the respondents. The appellant Corporation was fully justified in raising the plea of delay and latches. The High Court erred in ignoring such plea when the delay was quite unusual. We find no material to satisfactorily explain such delay.” 16. The case laws cited herein above indicate that the petitioners at their very inception when were appointed had accepted the condition that they would be governed by the CPF scheme. All through their tenure they continued to be so governed and even on retirement they accepted and withdrew their CPF contributions. There was no pension scheme made applicable to such employees. The judgments relied upon by Mr. J.V. Japee are therefore out of context. In the cases before this Court there were government resolutions giving options of switching over to pension scheme and the controversy was whether options at all were necessary. So is not the case on hand. There were no resolutions extending the benefits of opting over to pension. 17. In Nakara's case (supra) it was never held that both the pension retirees and the PF retirees form a homogeneous class. The beneficiaries of CPF scheme cannot claim parity. In the case of the petitioners they were CPF retirees and their rights were fully crystallized on the date of their retirement and on receipt of pensionary benefits and there was therefore no continuing obligation thereafter and they cannot be treated at par with living pensioners.” 16. Recently, in case of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Bhagwan and others, 2022 (4) SCC 193 , the Supreme Court has reiterated the same, which is reproduced herein-below: “17. Recently, in case of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Bhagwan and others, 2022 (4) SCC 193 , the Supreme Court has reiterated the same, which is reproduced herein-below: “17. The short question, which is posed for consideration of this Court is “whether the employees of WALMI are entitled to the pensionary benefits on a par with the State Government employees?” 18. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has directed the State to extend the retirement benefits to the employees of WALMI mainly on the following grounds: 18.1. That the primary functions of WALMI are educational, the purpose of establishing the Institute is to impart training to engineers and farmers of Maharashtra State and to provide expert advice to the Water Resources Department, Government of Maharashtra relating irrigation management. 18.2. That the Institute receives 100% grant from the Government since 1993. 18.3. That the posts created on the establishment are computed amongst the sanctioned posts of the Water Resources Department; the control in respect of the management and the governance rest with high-ranking officers i.e. Secretaries of the Government Department. 18.4. The Regulations applicable to the government employees relating to disciplinary matters as well as withdrawal of allowances like medical allowance, leave travel allowance, regulations relating to grant of leave so also regulations relating to disciplinary matters are uniform as in case of government employees. 18.5. The Maharashtra Civil Services Rules are applicable to the Government Employees. 18.6. That the employees of WALMI have been extended the benefit of time bound promotional scale as in case of government employees. 18.7. That the employees of WALMI have also received the benefit of wage, pay scale revision made applicable to the government employees. 18.8. That for all practicable purposes, the employees of WALMI are treated on a par with the government employees; the salary and allowances payable to employees of Walmi are being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. 18.9. The amount available with WALMI and deposited with EPF towards the employee's contribution itself is sufficient to meet the financial liability of the pensionary benefits to employees. 19. On the aforesaid grounds, the High Court has ultimately observed and held that there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the State to refuse to extend the benefit of pension to the retired employees of WALMI. 20. 19. On the aforesaid grounds, the High Court has ultimately observed and held that there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the State to refuse to extend the benefit of pension to the retired employees of WALMI. 20. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that none of the aforesaid grounds justify extension of the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI. 21. WALMI is an independent autonomous body and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The administration and management of WALMI is through its Governing Council. That WALMI has its own Rules, namely, the WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980, governing the service conditions and the benefits available to the employees of WALMI. The WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980 provide for the benefits of travelling allowance, daily allowance, medical reimbursement, house rent allowance, etc. but however, do not provide for pension, provident fund. Thereafter the Governing Council of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except Pension Rules. Thus, from the above, it can be seen that WALMI is an independent autonomous entity governed by their own Rules and Regulations and the administration and management of WALMI is being run through/by its Governing Council. Even the State is not the disciplinary authority of the employees of WALMI. That in the GR dated 17-3-2006, it is stated that in WALMI 170 posts are created on temporary establishment. However, it may be true that posts created in the WALMI are included in the total sanctioned number of posts in the Water Resources Department. However, in the said GR it is specifically observed that WALMI is an autonomous institution of the Government and 214 posts are sanctioned on fixed temporary establishment and 168 posts on converted temporary establishment. It further provides that as the posts are person-wise on the converted temporary establishment, the posts shall be abolished automatically, if the person retires or resigns or becomes vacant in any other way. It further provides that WALMI is an autonomous institution, the staff of it cannot be transferred anywhere. 22. It is required to be noted that as such the Government vide GR dated 8-11-2005 specifically took a policy decision that the employees of aided institutes, boards, corporations, who are not governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, shall not be made applicable to such institutions. 22. It is required to be noted that as such the Government vide GR dated 8-11-2005 specifically took a policy decision that the employees of aided institutes, boards, corporations, who are not governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, shall not be made applicable to such institutions. Even the proposal made by the then Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI came to be rejected by the State Government. Neither the GR dated 8-11-2005 nor the decision of the State Government refusing to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI are challenged. 23. In view of the above factual scenario, the question posed is: “Whether the employees of WALMI, which is an independent autonomous entity registered under the Societies Registration Act, are entitled to the pensionary benefits on a par with the State Government employees?” 24. While answering the aforesaid question, few decisions of this Court on the inference of the courts in the policy decision having financial implications and whether the employees of the board/societies, who are autonomous bodies can claim parity in the pay scale and/or other benefits which may be available to the government employees, are required to be considered. 26. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on a par with the government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/ Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the autonomous Board/body cannot be put on a par. 29. In the present case, WALMI being an autonomous body, registered under the Societies Registration Act, the employees of WALMI are governed by their own Service Rules and conditions, which specifically do not provide for any pensionary benefits; the Governing Council of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except the Pension Rules. 29. In the present case, WALMI being an autonomous body, registered under the Societies Registration Act, the employees of WALMI are governed by their own Service Rules and conditions, which specifically do not provide for any pensionary benefits; the Governing Council of WALMI has adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except the Pension Rules. Therefore, as such a conscious policy decision has been taken not to adopt the Pension Rules applicable to the State Government employees; that the State Government has taken such a policy decision in the year 2005 not to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of the aided institutes, boards, corporations, etc.; and the proposal of the then Director of WALMI to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI has been specifically turned down by the State Government. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the High Court is not justified in directing the State to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI, which is an independent autonomous entity.” 17. Thus, in the present case, Board and Corporations are autonomous bodies and the employees of these such bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service at par with the Government Employees unless the autonomous bodies adopt the benefits, which are given to the Government Employees. 18. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeals and the same are dismissed. As a sequel, the connected Civil Applications also stands rejected.