JUDGMENT G.K. Mathur, J. - By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing para 7 of the revised Post Retirement Insurance Cover Scheme contained in Letter No. HQ/25611/24/6B/Accounts/PCI dated 26th August, 1985 of the Director of Air Force Group Insurance Society and commanding the respondents to give the benefits of the Revised Post Retirement Insurance Cover Scheme to the petitioner. 2. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. 3. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties we are disposing of this petition finally at the admission stage. 4. The Air Force Group Insurance Society (hereinafter called AFGIS) which is a registered society under the Registration of Societies Act introduced with effect from 1st August, 1981 the Post Retirement Insurance Cover Scheme for the welfare of the retiring personnel. 5. The petitioner who was a commissioned officer in the Indian Air Force opted to become the member of the Post Retirements Insurance Cover Scheme (hereinafter called PRIC, Scheme) and contributed Rs. 2,000 the amount of non-refundable contribution meant for the officers under the Scheme and obtained an Insurance Cover against death w.e.f. 1st February, 1984, as he retired from service on 31st January, 1984 after attaining the age of superannuation, for a period of ten years or 65 years of age whichever is earlier and the amount of insurance cover in case of death was Rs. 60,000/- only. 6. The Scheme of Post Retirement Insurance Cover, 1981 has been revised and a modified Scheme has been introduced as PRIC-85, by the aforesaid letter dated 26th August, 1985, Annexure II. 7. In place of the flat period of Insurance Cover of `ten years from the date of retirement of all category of members a Schedule has been prepared without any ceiling on the upper age limit. In case of officers the death cover amount has been increased from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 80,000. By the impugned Para 7 of the aforesaid letter dated 26-8-1985, the revised death cover amount and the period covered has been made applicable for retirement/discharge arising on or after 31-8-1985. 8. In case of officers the death cover amount has been increased from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 80,000. By the impugned Para 7 of the aforesaid letter dated 26-8-1985, the revised death cover amount and the period covered has been made applicable for retirement/discharge arising on or after 31-8-1985. 8. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid stipulation contained in para 7 of Annexure `11' dated 26-8-1985 on the ground that it is arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D. S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 : 1983 UPLBEC 378 (SC). The petitioner urged that the classification between the members on the basis of date of retirement has no rational nexues to the objects sought to be achieved by the Scheme. 9. The PRIC is a voluntary Welfare Scheme of the Registered A.F.G.I. Society for the retiring personnel introduced for the first time in August, 1981 of which the petitioner became member on his retirement w.e.f. 1-2-1984. 10. The first periodical revision of the Scheme has been made in August 1985 when the fund position of December, 1984, the inflow and outflow as well as mortality rates were taken into consideration. The period of cover has been changed to make it more rational. The amount of death cover has been increased in view of inflationary tendency etc. and they has been made operative from a prospective date. 11. The plea of the petitioner is that the respondents have no right to revise the Scheme periodically, without extending the benefits to all the members, irrespective of the fact that the date of retirement would cause stagnation on the one hand and insurmountable problems on the other hand. If the revised Scheme of August 1985 is made applicable to the members of PRIC, 1981, it would become applicable to those members who have already died and their heirs may come forward to claim the increased amount of death cover. 12. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of discrimination does not arise at all because the first PRIC Scheme introduced with effect from 1-8-1981 covered those personnel who retired on or after 1-8-1981 and the revised Scheme introduced w.e.f. 31-8-1985 has given cover to the cases of those who retired on or after 31-8-1985. 12. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of discrimination does not arise at all because the first PRIC Scheme introduced with effect from 1-8-1981 covered those personnel who retired on or after 1-8-1981 and the revised Scheme introduced w.e.f. 31-8-1985 has given cover to the cases of those who retired on or after 31-8-1985. In the revised Scheme of August, 1985, no classification has been made. It has simply been made clear that it is applicable to the persons who retired or were discharged on or after 31-8-1985. In any case, the classification is reasonable and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Scheme. The case of D.S. Nakara (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is of no help to him. 13. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the following observations in paragraph 42 of the aforesaid case:- "..Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory. To illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in the same pay bracket, the average emolument was the same and both had put in equal number of years of service. How does a fortuitous circumstance of retiring a day earlier or a day later will permit totally unequal treatment in the matter of pension. One retired a day earlier will have to be subject to ceiling of Rs. 8,100 p.a. and average emolument to be worked out on 36 months' salary while the other will have a ceiling of Rs. 12,000 p. a. and average emolument will be computed on the basis of last ten months' average. The artificial division stares into face and is unrelated to any principle and whatever principle, if there by any, has absolutely no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counter productive and runs counter to the whole gamut of pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counter productive and runs counter to the whole gamut of pension scheme. The equal treatment guaranteed in Article 14 is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being statutory in character, since, the prescribed date, the rules accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. A 48 hours' difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled. Therefore, the classification does not stand the test of Article 14." 14. In our opinion, the petitioner has not appreciated the import of the ruling relied upon by him. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 21 of the aforesaid ruling have indicated as below : "There are various kinds of pensions and there are equally various methods of funding pension programmes. The present enquiry is limited to non-contributory superannuation or retirement pension paid by Government to its erstwhile employee and the purpose and object underlying it." 15. In para 63 of the aforesaid ruling it has been indicated as below : "The financial implication in such matters have some relevance. However, in this connection we want to steer clear of a misconception. There is no pension fund as it is found either in contributory pension schemes administered in foreign countries or as in Insurance-linked pensions...................." 16. In view of the above quoted observations, we think that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the ruling relied upon by him. Since we are concerned with the contributory Post Retirement Insurance Cover Scheme in the present case, we overrule the contention of the petitioner that the contents of para. 7 of Annexure II, dated 26-8-1985 are arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. The petition fails and is hereby rejected. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.