JUDGMENT B.P. Singh & Ashish N. Trivedi, JJ. - In this Writ Petition the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay her Family Pension. According to the petitioner she is the wife of late Ram Krishna Paswan, who was a Teacher in a Private School which was taken over by the State of Bihar in the year 1971. Sri Paswan died on 14.10.1975 while in service. The petitioner claims in this Writ petition that she is entitled to post retirement benefits including Family Pension. 2. The case of the Respondents is that though the petitioner is entitled to benefits under the Tripple Benefit Scheme which existed at the time when her husband died, she is not entitled of Family Pension. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner was entitled to Tripple Benefit of Provident Fund, Gratuity and Pension only under the relevant Rules as they existed on the date of his death. So far as the Family Pension is concerned, the same was introduced by the State of Bihar for the first time on 7th June 1976 providing that those teachers who retired or died prior to 31st March, 1976 shall be entitled to the benefit under the Tripple Benefit Scheme but those who retired after 31st March, 1976 shall be governed by the Bihar Pension Rules. In substance those who retired on 1.4.1976 and thereafter are entitled to the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme but the same is not applicable to those retiring or dying before 1st April, 1976. Accordingly the husband of the petitioner was only entitled to benefits under the Tripple Benefit Scheme and therefore the' Petitioner cannot claim Family Pension which has been introduced with effect from 1st April, 1976, much after the death of the husband of the petitioner. 3. The Writ Petition was initially placed for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court who admitted the Writ Petition and referred the matter for hearing before a Division Bench. 4. The question urged before the learned Judge was whether for the purpose of Family Pension, the Respondents-State can fix a cut off date or not. 3. The Writ Petition was initially placed for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court who admitted the Writ Petition and referred the matter for hearing before a Division Bench. 4. The question urged before the learned Judge was whether for the purpose of Family Pension, the Respondents-State can fix a cut off date or not. While the State Government employees who retired prior to 31st March, 1976 are entitled only to the Tripple Benefit Scheme which includes Pension, Gratuity and Provident Fund, those retiring after 31st March, 1976 are also entitled, in addition to the benefit of Family Pension. The question which arose for consideration was whether an artificial date for making a distinction between the two sets of employees can be prescribed and whether such action was not arbitrary. 5. Counsel for the State has drawn our attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1994(1) P.L.J.R. 33 (State of West Bengal and others Vs. Ratan Bihari Dey and ors.) and 1995 (2) S. C. C. 117 (State of Rajasthan vs. Sevanivitra Karamohari Hitkari Samiti) and submitted that the principle has now been firmly laid down by the Supreme Court that the scheme for grant of pensionary benefit can be made operative prescribing a cut off date which must be chosen in a reasonable manner having regard to the facts and circumstances. In that case the Writ Petitioners were employees of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and had retired from the Corporation service prior to April 1, 1977. They were paid Provident Fund in accordance with Rules then in force but since no pension was provided for by the Rules or Regulations then in force they neither claimed nor were granted any pension. The terminal benefits, such as were payable according to Rules, were paid to them. Subsequently in view of the demand of the Corporation-employees for payment of pension, the Government of West Bengal appointed a Pay Commission in March, 1978 with a view to examine the said claim and to make their recommendations. Ultimately, regulations were framed and published in the year 1982 but were given effect to from April 1, 1977. The regulations provided inter alia that every employee who retired on or after April 1, 1977 can exercise the option in the prescribed proforma within the time specified to come under the pension scheme. Ultimately, regulations were framed and published in the year 1982 but were given effect to from April 1, 1977. The regulations provided inter alia that every employee who retired on or after April 1, 1977 can exercise the option in the prescribed proforma within the time specified to come under the pension scheme. The Writ Petitioners approached the Calcutta High Court in the year 1985 for issuance of a writ of Mandamus applying the said Regulations to those employees who retired even prior to April 1, 1977. The Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court mainly relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983) 2 S.C.R. 165 ). The High Court took the view that all the retired employees of the Corporation constituted one single class, and classifying them into two categories with reference to April 1, 1977, was neither reasonable nor was it in any manner related to the object of the Regulations. Before the Supreme Court the correctness of this view was challenged. Allowing the appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that the principle of Nakara's case had no application to the facts of the case. The court held that it is open to the State to change the conditions of service unilaterally. Terminal benefits as well as Pensionary benefits constitute conditions of service. The employer has the undoubted power to revise the salaries and/or the pay scales and terminal benefits/pensionery benefits. The power to specify a date from which the revision of pay scales or terminal benefits/pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is a concomitant of the State power. So long as such date is specified in a resonable manner, that is without bringing about a discrimination between similarly situated persons, no interference is called for by the Court in that behalf. Noticing the fact that in the Calcutta Corporation a Pension Scheme was enforced prior to 1914 but was given up and substituted by a Provident Fund Scheme, certain deductions were made from the salary of the employees every month and credited to the fund and equal amount was contributed by the employer which too was credited to the fund. The total amount to the credit of the employees in the fund was paid to him on the date of his retirement. The total amount to the credit of the employees in the fund was paid to him on the date of his retirement. The employees were demanding the introduction of pension scheme and it was in the year 1977 that the demand fell the receptive case. The matter was then considered and the State Government thought it would be appropriate to give effect to the Regulations on and from April 1, 1977, the first day of the financial year in which the Pay Commission was appointed by the Government. Under these circumstances it was held that the Government cannot be said to have acted unreasonably in specifying the said date. The power of the State to specify a date with effect from which the regulations framed shall come into force cannot be questioned and such a date can be specified both prospectively as well as retrospectively. Nakara's case was distinguished on the ground that in that case an artificial date was specified classifying the retirees, governed by the same Rules and similarly situated into two different classes, depriving one such class of the benefit of liberalised Pension Rules. In the case in hand it was held that the employees retiring prior to April 1, 1977, and those retiring thereafter, were governed by different set of Rules. The argument to the contrary may mean that the Government can never change conditions of service relating to retiral benefits with effect from a particular date. No such absolute proposition can be stated that while effecting any such change, no date from which such change will come into force can be specified. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal and held that there was no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in giving effect to the regulations on and from April 1, 1977. The same principles have been reiterated in (1995)2 S.C.C. 117 (State of Rajsthan vs. Seva Nivatra Karmchari Hitkari Samiti). 6. In the instant case as well it may be noticed that before the year 1976 teachers, like the husband of the petitioner, were entitled to the Triple Benefit Scheme which included Provident Fund, Gratuity and Pension. Bihar Pension Rules were made applicable to such teachers only subsequently with effect from April 1, 1976. Benefit of Family Pension Scheme was not available to such teachers earlier, and therefor some date held to be prescribed for bringing into effect the benefit of Family Pension. Bihar Pension Rules were made applicable to such teachers only subsequently with effect from April 1, 1976. Benefit of Family Pension Scheme was not available to such teachers earlier, and therefor some date held to be prescribed for bringing into effect the benefit of Family Pension. It is also relevant to notice that it was only in the year 1976 that the legislature enacted the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976, and benefit of Family Pension was made applicable from the first day of the financial year 1976-1977, There is therefore a rational basis for the selection of the date of applicability. 7. We are of the view that in view of the principles laid down in the judgments of the Supreme Court, this Writ Petition must be dismissed and it must be held that the employees retiring prior to April 1, 1976 and those retiring thereafter were governed by different set of Rules, It cannot be said that between those governed by the same set of Rules and being similarly situated, distinction was sought to be drawn by creating two different classes. At the time when the husband of the petitioner died, the benefit of Family Pension was not available to retiring employees such as him. Since the Rules itself was made applicable with effect from a date much after his death, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit under such Rules entitling her to claim Family Pension. In prescribing the date of applicability, the State has not acted in an unreasonable or discriminatory manner. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be entitled to the benefit of Pension under the 1964 Rules. The said 1964 Rules has been noticed in a judgment of this Court in (1996)2 P.L.J.R. 471. In that judgment we find reference to the eligibility conditions and it appears that 10 years of service was necessary to be eligible for payment of such pension. Counsel for the State submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner's husband had served for four years as a Government Servant and therefore he may not be eligible under the 1964 Rules in any event. He further submitted that the petitioner never claimed Family Pension under the 1964 Rules, nor was it ever considered by the authority. 9. Counsel for the State submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner's husband had served for four years as a Government Servant and therefore he may not be eligible under the 1964 Rules in any event. He further submitted that the petitioner never claimed Family Pension under the 1964 Rules, nor was it ever considered by the authority. 9. Under these circumstances we are of the view that though the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Family Pension which has been made applicable with effect from 1st April, 1976 pursuant to a decision of the Government dated 7th June, 1976 (Annexure 'A' to the Counter Affidavit) if she makes a claim under the 1964 Rules for payment of Family Pension, the same may be examined by the appropriate Authority and a decision taken. We express no opinion on the claim for Family Pension under the 1964 Rules. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.