JUDGMENT : 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 4528 of 1993. 2. A common question is involved for decision in all these appeals. By an Office Memorandum dated 24th December, 1985 issued by the Department of Defence Research and Development in the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India, the age of superannuation of all scientific and technical personnel was raised from 58 years to 60 years except in the case of a few scientists like the respondents in these appeals. This exception resulted from the proviso inserted in the office Memorandum enhancing the age of superannuation, which read as under: "Provided they have been promoted to the grades they are holding at the time of attaining the age of 58 years within the preceding 5 years." 3. The respondents challenged the validity of the above quoted proviso which denied to them and some others like them the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation without any rational basis. The Tribunal has accepted the challenge made by the respondents and struck down the above proviso in the Office Memorandum dated 24th December, 1985 as discriminatory. Hence these appeals by special leave. 4. There is nothing shown by the Union of India either before the Tribunal or before us to justify the making of such an exception which results in denial of the benefit of enhancement of age only to some scientists like the present respondents. The basis indicated in the proviso for making this classification has no rational nexus with the object of enhancing the age of superannuation. The proviso is.clearly discriminatory and, therefore, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as rightly held by the Tribunal. We do not find any ground to take a different view. 5. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.