of NCT of Delhi. In his submissions, the matters of pension have serious financial implications, which, ordinarily require concurrence of Union of India and therefore, in the absence of a specific rule or regulation framed by the Parishad and the approval thereof having been granted by the appropriate Government(s), the benefit of pension sought by the petitioner was not permissible. Mr. Ghose also contended that the Parishad Rules, which provide for the rules and regulations governing the employees of Government of Delhi being made applicable to Parishad staff in general, by itself, would not mean applicability of each and every rule and regulation governing the employees of Government of Delhi to the staff of the Parishad. In his submissions, Rule 9 in its opening words itself says that the rules and regulations governing the employees of Government of Delhi were to apply in general , which implied not in their entirety. In his submissions, had it been the intention that all the rules and regulations governing the employees of Government of Delhi were to be applicable, there was no necessity to use the expression 'in general' for their applicability to the staff of the Parishad and that, such leverage was provided to the Parishad to take its own call in such context. In his submissions, when the Parishad rules do not make provision for pension but for salary and allowances, leaves, retirement and provident fund, any claim therefor would not be sustainable. Also, according to him, the adoption of the Central Civil Services Rules mutatis mutandis, as provided for under sub-section (10) of Section 16 of the Parishad Act, 1998, does not imply the applicability of the CCS (Pension) Rules. To bring home such submission, Mr.Ghose drew attention to dictionary meaning in the Oxford's English reference dictionary and the Black's law dictionary. In the
