Honble JAIN, J. — By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alongwith the similar writ petitions mentioned in Schedule- A, the petitioners seek to quash the Regulation l(ii) of the Pension Regulations, 1990 of the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur making pension regulations effective from 1.1.90 being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also seek a declaration that the pension scheme shall be treated as applicable to all employees who have retired on or after 1.1.1986. (2). Since all these writ petitions mentioned in schedule-A and B appended with this order involve an identical question of law,as agreed by the parties,they are being disposed of by this common order. (3). For convenient disposal of these writ petitions, the facts of D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.115/93 are taken into consideration. According to the petitioner he retired from the service of the University on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st of March,1988 as Associate Professor after rendering more than 25 years of service. Earlier in the year 1983 the University Grants Commission constituted a Committee known as Mahrotra Committee to examine the structure of emoluments and conditions of service of the University and College Teachers taking into account the age of superannuation, medical and housing etc. In the year 1986 Mahrotra Committee recommended certain changes to the University Grants Commission which in his turn recommended the same to Government of India wherein clause 6.12.2 relates to carrer advancement scheme, revision of pay scale and pensionary benefit making it applicable to the University Teachers from 1.1.1986. The syndicate vide resolution no.223/86 dated 26.7.1986 and resolution no.239/86 dated 8th November,1986 in exercise of the power conferred under section 20 of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 amended the statutes proposing new statute 50, which was approved by the Senate in its meeting held in December, 1986. Thereafter the Syndicate framed University of Jodhpur Pension Regulations, 1990 in exercise of the power vested in statute 5(2) (iv) and (ix) of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 which were approved by the Finance Committee vide resolution No. 8/91 dated 17.5.1991 and by the Senate vide resolution No.78/91 dated 29.5.91, the resolution is marked as Annex.2. Representations were made by the Associations and employees who were retired prior to 1.1.1990 against the applicability of Pension Regulations from 1.1.1990. Representations were made by the Associations and employees who were retired prior to 1.1.1990 against the applicability of Pension Regulations from 1.1.1990. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 15th of January, 1992 constituted a sub-committee to consider the anomalies in the Pension Regulations, 1990. The Sub-Commitee after considering various representations recommended vide Anex-4 that the Syndicate may recommend to the Government that the pension scheme for University employees be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The Syndicate approved the report of the Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 15th of June, 1992 vide resolution No.55/92(Annex.5) with a condition that where-ever there is any financial implications, the matter of amendment as recommended be referred to the Government of Rajasthan for approval. As alleged by the petitioner a number of representations were made to the higher authorities viz. Vice Chancellor, Chief Minister and the Minister for Higher Education for redressal of grievances but of no avail. Dissatisfied with the fixing of cut-off date 1.1.1990 for granting pensionary benefits,the petitioner and like others who have retired earlier have challenged the same by means of writ petition under Article 226 to make it applicable from 1.1.1986. (4). Separate reply was filed by the University and the State. Rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner and again reply to the rejoinder was filed. Thereafter, additional reply was filed by the State on 25.7.94. (5). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and also relevant case law cited at bar. (6). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Shyam Sunderlal Sahu Vs. Khadi and Village Industries (S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.2486/90, D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India (2), All India Reserved Bank Retired Offecers Assocation Vs. Union of India (J.T.1990(6) S.C.400) and special Application No.4449/1988 of Gujarat High Court decided on 21.8.1990 and submits that petitioner is entitled to get benefit of pension from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1990,as there is no justification to fix artificial cut off date 1.1.1990 fixed by the aforesaid regulation which has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the introduction of this pension scheme and shall be applicable to all employees of the respondents including those who retired on or before 1.1.90. (7). Before, we proceed it is necessary to discuss some cases cited at bar. (8). The basic authority on the subject is the case of D.S.Nakara Vs. (7). Before, we proceed it is necessary to discuss some cases cited at bar. (8). The basic authority on the subject is the case of D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India (supra) wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer,nor an exgratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It has been held that all the pensioners have equal right to receive the benefits of liberalised pension scheme. The pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified by an arbitrary unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criterion for the purpose of grant of revised pension. The criterion of date of enforcement of the revised scheme entitling benefits of the revision to those retiring after that date while depriving the benefits to those retiring prior to that date was held to be violative of Article 14 such unconstitutional part can be served from the otherwise constitutional provision by laying down the provision i.e. omitting the offending criterion will not make the scheme having financial implications retrospective in nature. Their lordships also observed 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. They for the purpose of pension benefits form a homogeneous class, which cannot be divided by arbitrarily, fixing an eligibility criterion unrelated to the purpose of revision of pension. Their lordships kept the cut out date intact but extended the benefit not only to those persons who retired on or after March 31,1979 but also to those who had retired earlier to it because pensioners form one homogeneous group or class by themselves which cannot be micro-classified. (9). In krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India (3), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of certain retired railway employees who were claiming to come over to the pension scheme has held that employee under pension scheme and employee under provident fund scheme being held two classes which are distinct to each other. (9). In krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India (3), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of certain retired railway employees who were claiming to come over to the pension scheme has held that employee under pension scheme and employee under provident fund scheme being held two classes which are distinct to each other. Their lordships have held that pension scheme and a provident fund scheme are statutorily different and those belonging to latter scheme cannot claim to come over to the former scheme as of right on the plea that the cut off date fixed under scheme violated Article 14 of the Constitution. (10). In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Associations case(supra) a scheme of pension was introduced for the first time in substitution of C.P.F. scheme and the cut off date was fixed. After considering Nakaras case, their lodships of the Supreme Court observed that where an existing scheme is revised or liberalised all those who are governed by the said scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberations and if the State desires to deny it to a group thereof, it must justify its action on the touch stone of Article 14 and must show that a certain group is denied the benefit of revision liberalisation on sound reasons and not entirely on the whim and caprice of the State. (11). In Shyam Sunder Sahus case(supra) the cut-off date 1.1.1988 fixed for the application of the pension scheme for the employees of the Board was struck down by this court holding that pension scheme should be treated as applicable from the date on or before 28.1.83 when the Board has sanctioned sending of the pension scheme to the Government. - (12). In Ram Bagoria Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (4) some employees who were retired on 20.3.1987 challenged Regulation-2 by which the RSEB Pension Regulation,1988 was made effective from 20.11.1988 since their options for pension were not accepted,even when they served for more than 20 years. - (12). In Ram Bagoria Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (4) some employees who were retired on 20.3.1987 challenged Regulation-2 by which the RSEB Pension Regulation,1988 was made effective from 20.11.1988 since their options for pension were not accepted,even when they served for more than 20 years. The Division Bench of this Court after considering the case law cited observed that in the light of the principles which have been laid down by the Apex Court since the right of those persons who have retired prior to cut off date have already been crystalised then subsequent by introduction of a wholly new scheme the employees have no vested right and the employer can restrict the same to certain class of retirees namely; who have retired on or after the cut off date. (13). In Union of India Vs. P.N.Menon (5) the employees who retired before 30.9.77 challenged the Notification dated 25.9.1979 issued by the Government of India treating a portion of dearness allowance as pay in respect of Government Servants retiring after 30.9.77. The writ petition was accepted by a Single Bench same was up-held by the Division Bench. The matter was taken up by the Union of India before the Supreme Court. Their lordships of the Supreme Court has held that whenever the Government or an authority, which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution frames a scheme for persons who have superannuated from service,due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such any revised scheme in respect of post-retirement benefits, if implemented with a cut off date, which can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. It shall amount to picking out a date from the hat as was said by this court in the case of D.R.Nim Vs. Union of India (6) in connection with fixation of seniority. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government." (14). It shall amount to picking out a date from the hat as was said by this court in the case of D.R.Nim Vs. Union of India (6) in connection with fixation of seniority. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government." (14). In Special Civil application No.4449 of 1988, prefarred by association of retired professor attached to the Universities and various affiliated Colleges in the State of Gujarat challenging a part of the resolution issued by the Government of Gujarat on 15.10.1984 by which certain retirement benefits were sought to be granted only to those Professors and the members of the Association who retired after April,1982 and not to those who had retired prior to the said date. Recommendations of kothari Committee and Sen Committee as well as the report of the University Grants Commission were referred before the court. The learned Single Judge made a reference to the decision of Bombay High Court rendered in Retired Employees of Non-Government Colleges Association, Nagpur Vs.State of Maharashtra(Special Civil Application No.2632 of 1985) wherein a distinction was sought to be made between the employees of the non-government colleges who had retired w.e.f. October 1,1982 and prior to that date. That petition was allowed by a Division Bench holding that the provision made with regard to the cut off date of the persons similarly situated must be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since it deprived the petitioner and other similarly situated persons who retired between January 1,1973 and September 30,1982 of those benefits which had been granted to the employees who retired after October 1,1982. The learned Single Judge after relying on D.S.Nakaras case and aforesaid Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court,which stood affirmed by the Apex Court while rejecting the S.L.P.No.8569/1987 on 14.9.1987 as has been mentioned in the judgment itself, held that all those Professors who retired prior to April 1, 1982 are also entitled to pensionary benefits. (15). The settled legal position is that the pension is a reward for past service. (15). The settled legal position is that the pension is a reward for past service. In a case where existing scheme is liberalised all the members of service had a right on uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups would violate the principles of equality and such artificial division between the members of same class is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. But in the case where altogether a new scheme is introduced some date is to be fixed as cut off date and some persons are bound to be affected as no such scheme can be a full proof scheme covering and keeping in view all the persons who are in active service at one time and to give benefit. The employer can restrict the same to certain class of retirees having regard to the fact-situation in which it came to be introduced. The State being a welfare State is duty bound to treat the equal at equal level and cannot treat equal at unequal level as laid down by founding father of the Constitution. However, looking to socio-economic conditions of welfare, the State can impose reasonable restriction, as the concept of Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. It is now settled concept of law that the fundamental right and directive principle are not over-riding but supplement to each other and if any differentia is created between homogenous class by the policy decision of the State it comes within the dominion of the Court and can be judged so as to come to a conclusion whether there is any reasonable nexus and rationality with the object sought to be achieved. (16). Now applying the above principles and the dictum of the decisions of their lordships, we have to see whether the application of the Jodhpur University Pension Regulations, 1990 to the employees regularly appointed to the service of the University on or after 1.1.1990 as provided Regulation 2(i) of the said Regulations, is reasonable or not. (17). Admittedly, earlier there was no pension scheme available to the employees serving the University and the only scheme available was the Provident Fund Scheme. Later on the Pension Regulations, 1990 and General Provident Fund Regulations 1990 was ebacted by the University on 29.5.1991. (17). Admittedly, earlier there was no pension scheme available to the employees serving the University and the only scheme available was the Provident Fund Scheme. Later on the Pension Regulations, 1990 and General Provident Fund Regulations 1990 was ebacted by the University on 29.5.1991. Regulation 2 provides Scope and Application of the Regulations: which runs as under: — Regulation 2: Scope and Application: (i) These regulations shall apply to all persons regularly appointed to the service of the University of Jodhpur on or after 1.1.1990. (ii) These regulations shall also apply to all existing employees both teaching and non-teaching who opt for pension scheme under these regulations within the period specified in Regulation 4 for exercising option. In case of employees who do not exercise option within the specified period, it will be deemed that the concerned employee has opted for the pension scheme under these regulations. (18). A bare perusal of the Regulation 2 makes it clear that the benefit of Regulations, 1990 has been extended to the persons who have retired from the service of the University of Jodhpur on or after 1.1.90 and all existing employees-both teaching and non- teaching. (19). It is no doubt true that being a new pension scheme the respondents are always free to implement it from any date considering all the aspects including the important aspect of financial implications. In the instant case as stated above,the scheme covers not only existing employees but also the employees who retired on or after 1.1.1990. The fixing of date 1.1.1990 as cut off date is tested on the touch stone of Article 14, the result in our opinion would be that it classifies and makes division of members of a homogeneous group. It is needless to state that the burden of proving the cut off date as reasonable is on .the respondents. We have carefully gone through the replies submitted by the State as well as by the University. The State in its reply has come out with a case that the Committee constituted by the U.G.C. relates to Central University/Universities and not relates to State and that too it is not constituted according to Statute 22 of the University. We have carefully gone through the replies submitted by the State as well as by the University. The State in its reply has come out with a case that the Committee constituted by the U.G.C. relates to Central University/Universities and not relates to State and that too it is not constituted according to Statute 22 of the University. It is stated that the State is fully empowered to control the finance of autonomous body, and further that the employees cannot be granted double benefit i.e. benefit of pension and benefit of provident fund and afterhaving retired from the service the benefit of pension cannot be extended. These averments are not of any avail since they do not disclose any explanation for fixing the cut off date as 1.1.90. The University has argued before us that earlier only scheme available for the benefit of permanent employees was P.F. and as per Government decision dated 1.1.90 they enacted the pension scheme and the University brought resolution on 29.5.1991 meaning thereby that the Scheme is made effective from 1.1.90 only, therefore, the scheme is prospective and not retrospective in nature. Had the respondents in fact made it applicable prospective there would not have been any substance in the challenge of the petitioners. But as the respondents made it applicable from 1.1.90 which means that the pension scheme has been made effective retrospectively. Therefore, once the respondents have extended the benefit of pension scheme even to the employees who have retired on or after 1.1.1990,the other similarly situated persons are well within their right to challenge any such rule or regulation having statutory flavour made by the University, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the choice of the cut off date which has necessarily to be introduced to effectuate such benefits is open to scrutiny by the court and must be supported on the touch-stone of Article 14. The respondent was given one more opportunity to produce any material in support of fixation of date. In compliance of the order, the State filed additional reply on 25.7.94 stating two Aeasons for justifying fixing a cut of date as 1.1.1990. "First, the syndicate and the Senate of the either university has made no request for any specific cut off date prior to the governments own final decision in the matter in 1990-1991. In compliance of the order, the State filed additional reply on 25.7.94 stating two Aeasons for justifying fixing a cut of date as 1.1.1990. "First, the syndicate and the Senate of the either university has made no request for any specific cut off date prior to the governments own final decision in the matter in 1990-1991. Secondly, the justification of the cut off date is wholly economic." Though in the resolution passed by the Syndicate which was approved by the Senate in its meeting held in December,1986 (Annex.l), there is no mention about the date from which it had to be made applicable but it being a financial matter approval of Government was necessary and, therefore, it appears that any specific date was not mentioned. That apart non- mentioning of the date does not make the case of the respondents stronger. Later on while considering the grievances of various employees and associations a Sub-Committee constituted by the Syndicate after considering pro and cons of the matter recommended that the Syndicate may recommend to the Government that the pension scheme for University employees be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide Annex.4 as proposed by the Senate earlier. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 15.6.1992 approved the recommendation of the sub-committee. There-fore, the first reason shown for fixing the cut off date by the State is without any basis. Since the second reason of justification of the cut off date i.e. financial implication has an important role to play in such type of matter, though nothing has been placed on record in support of Anx. 8 dated 24.4.91 whereby Cabinet has approved the sanction of pension scheme and provident fund scheme from 1.1.1990 but this aspect cannot be lost sight, we proceed to consider the case from this angle. Mr. Sangeet Lodha,counsel for the petitioner has opposed the economic reason. According to him the question of double benefit does not arise as the every retiree will deposit the entire P.F. amount along with 6% interest as per Regulation 4 and in lieu of which he will get pension. He also submits that in Jodhpur University only 32 members of teaching staff have been retired between 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1990 and it will not much burden the State financially. He also submits that in Jodhpur University only 32 members of teaching staff have been retired between 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1990 and it will not much burden the State financially. He further submits that the University has not completed its process as yet and only on August 3,1991 issued notice to exercise options within three months as per Regulation 4. But we have to see that the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the State Government. In almost similar circumstances in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Associations case(supra) regulation 3(3) and 31 were challenged before the Apex Court whereby pension scheme in substitution of CPF Scheme was introduced fixing December 31,1985 as cut off date and the persons who retired before that date were denied the benefit and option was given to those who retired between January 1,1986 to 31st October,1990. It was held that classification was reasonable and repelled the contention to give benefit to those who retired prior to December 31,1985 holding that it is not hit by Article 14 on the ground that scheme is new one having no connection with the existing scheme and employer is free to decide the extent of applicability on the basis of its capacity to absorb of financial burden. (20). In the above case though the benefit was extended to the incumbents retired between 1.1.1986 to 30.10.1990 by the regulation of the Bank itself but the principle of financial constraint enunciated in the said case is fully applicable to the case in hand. (20). In the above case though the benefit was extended to the incumbents retired between 1.1.1986 to 30.10.1990 by the regulation of the Bank itself but the principle of financial constraint enunciated in the said case is fully applicable to the case in hand. As discussed above and in view of the aforesaid All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Associations case (supra) while keeping and maintaining 1.1.1990 as the date of applicability of pension regulation, we hold that permanent employees of the University retired on or after 1.1.1986 including the petitioners and like others shall be eligible for pension according to Pension Regulation,1990 if otherwise eligible as this new pension scheme was mooted by the University for the first time in the year 1986 vide Syndicate Resolution No.223/86 dated 26.7.86 and Resolution No.239/86 dated 8.11.86 which was approved by the Senate in December, 1986 on the basis of recommendation of Sen and Mehrotra Committee approved by the U.G.C. But since it involves financial implications, therefore, keeping in view the inability expressed by the State to absorb the financial burden we deem it proper that the pension shall be payable to such retirees who retired between 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1990 from 1.1.1990 only. The benefit is extended to persons who retired on or after 1.1.1986 and not prior to that. (21). However,this benefit of pension cannot be granted to the persons who retired prior to 1986 and they are not entitled for pension as discussed above. (22). The payment of pension shall be subject to their eligibility and refunding of the amount of contributory provident fund received by them under earlier scheme at the time of retirement together with simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of 1.1.1990 till the date of re-payment according to Regulation 4 of the Pension Regulations, 1990. The University is directed to give options within three months from the date of receipt of this order to all eligible who retired on or after 1.1.1986. The entire exercise shall be completed within six months in view of above directions. (23). In the result,this writ petition along with the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule-A are partly allowed. The writ petitions filed by the retirees prior to 1.1.1986 mentioned in schedue B are dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. The entire exercise shall be completed within six months in view of above directions. (23). In the result,this writ petition along with the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule-A are partly allowed. The writ petitions filed by the retirees prior to 1.1.1986 mentioned in schedue B are dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Schedule A & B shall be made a part of this judgment.