JUDGMENT H. C. Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner was a Senior prosecuting officer in Agra and he took pre-mature retirement on the ground of ill health on 12th April 1976. His date of birth admittedly is 20th October, 1919 and he had joined his service in the year 1943. In the ordinary course be would have retired after completing the age of 58 years i.e. on 20th October, 1977. Thus he took pre-mature retirement about 1 1/2 years before the date of superannuation. The petitioner's case is that the U. P. Fundamental Rule (Amendment) Act 1976 was enacted on 16-11-1976. Section 2 (ii) of the Act provides that a government servant who took voluntary retirement would be given the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the date of his superannuation. The petitioner, therefore, after having taken the voluntary retirement claimed the benefit of the said provision for purposes of his pension and gratuity i.e. the date of his retirement should have been taken as 20th October, 1977 and not 12th April 1976. 2. The petitioner sent representation to the Inspector General of Police, along with the copy of G. O. No. 5/7/1977 (3) Karmik dated 24-8-1987 and that representati6n was forward by the Police Headquarter to the Accountant General, U. P. for necessary action through letter dated 21st January 1984 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). The petitioner also sent subsequent representations but his request has not been conceded nor any reply has been given to him, hence he has filed the present writ petition. The petition has been contested on the ground that the U. P. Fundamental Rules (Amending) Act 176 had come into force on 16th November, 1976 while the petitioner had taken volountary retirement prior to it on 12th April 1976 and as such he could not take benefit of the Amending Act. The petition has been contested on the ground that the U. P. Fundamental Rules (Amending) Act 176 had come into force on 16th November, 1976 while the petitioner had taken volountary retirement prior to it on 12th April 1976 and as such he could not take benefit of the Amending Act. Which reads as follows "(ii) In clause (c) the following proviso shall be inserted, namely ;- "provided that where a Government servant who voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation which ever be less." From the above it is clear that no date was specified as to from which it would have been enforceable i.e. the Amending Act does not provide that the benefit shall be available only to those who retire on or after the enforcement of the said Act i.e. the benefit . would not be admissible to those who have retired prior to the enforcement of the said Act. 3. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that in the absence of any specific provision that the benefit would be given to only those who have retired after the enforcement of the Amending Act and not to those who have retired prior to it, the petitioner who had retired a few month earlier could not be denied the benefit. 4. The pensioners of the government from a class for purpose of pensionary benefits and there could not be mini classification within the class designated as pensioners. The expression 'pensioner' is generally understood in contra distinction to the one in service. Government servants in service, in other words, those who have not' retired are entitled to salary and other allowances. Those who retire and are designated as 'pensioners' are entitled to receive pension under the relevant rules. Therefore, this would clearly indicate that those who render service and retire on superannuation or any other mode of retirement and are in receipt of pension are comprehended in the expression 'pensioners'. Those who retire and are designated as 'pensioners' are entitled to receive pension under the relevant rules. Therefore, this would clearly indicate that those who render service and retire on superannuation or any other mode of retirement and are in receipt of pension are comprehended in the expression 'pensioners'. The class of pensioners should not be further divided for the purpose of 'entitlement' and 'payment' of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired after that date. If date of retirement is to be accepted as a valid criterion for classification, on retirement each individual Government servant would form a class by himself because the date of each is corelated to his birth and on attaining a certain age he has to retire. This would be too microscopic a classification to be upheld for any valid purpose and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the objection of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are together from others and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 6. The scope content and meaning of Article 14 of the constitution has been the subject matter of intensive examination by the Honourable Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. It would, therefore, be merely adding to the length of this judgment to recapitulate all those decisions and it is better to avoid that exercise save and except referring to the direct decision of the Honourable Supreme Court on the same subject matter in the case of "D. S. Nakra v. Union of India" AIR 1983 SC 130 . In that case pension benefits to Central Government employees were involved. In that case pension benefits to Central Government employees were involved. On May 25, 1979, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, issued office Memorandum No. F-19 (3) EV-79 whereby the formula for computation of pension was liberalised but made it applicable to Government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retire from service on or after that date (specified date for short). The formula introduced a slab system for computation of pension. This liberalised pension formula was applicable to employees governed by the 1972 Rules retiring on or after the specified date. 7. In that case thus it was specifically mentioned in the Government order that the benefit would be available to only those government servants who were on service on a specified date. The petitioners had challenged raison d'etre for the payment of liberalised pension only to those who retired after the specified dates and it was contended that the classification based on forfuitus circumstances of retirement before or subsequent to a date, fixing of which was not shown to be related to any rational principle, was violated of Article 14. 8. Their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court held that the conditions in respect of the government servant who were in service on 31st March 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date or that the rates of pension were effective from 1st April 1979 and would not be applicable to all service officers who became/become non-effective on or after that date were unconstitutional, hence were struck down with the specification that the date mentioned therein would be relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension scheme became operative to all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules irrespective the date of retirement. The same view has been taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India v. Bidhubhushan Malik", AIR 1984 SC 1177 . In that case the petitioners were retired Judges of the Honourable High Court and the pension rules provided different pension for those who had retired on or after the first day of October and the same was held unconstitutional and struck down. It was held that the Judges (including the Chief Justices) of the High Courts are entitled to pension as computed in the High Court Judges (Condition of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended) irrespective of the date of retirement. 9. It was held that the Judges (including the Chief Justices) of the High Courts are entitled to pension as computed in the High Court Judges (Condition of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended) irrespective of the date of retirement. 9. The case of the petitioner stands on a better footing as there is no specific provision for enforcing the Amending Act from any particular date or prohibiting the benefit to those who had retired before 16th November, 1976. It is, therefore, declared that all the pensioners of the State of U. P. who took voluntary retirement would be given the benefit of additional service of five years of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the date of his superannuation. The petitioner, therefore, who had taken voluntary retirement on 12th April, 1976 would be entitled to the benefit of the said provision for purposes of his pension and gratuity i.e. the date of his retirement would be taken as the 20th October, 1977 and not 12th April, 1976. 10. We, therefore, consider it a fit case for issuing writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the respondents to give the benefit of the said provision of the U. P. Fundamental Rule (Amendment Act) 1976 for purposes of his pension and gratuity i. e. the date of his retirement should be taken as 20th October, 1977 and to pay the arrears of pension and gratuity accordingly, within six months from today. In default the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum. Writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.