JUDGMENT The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for a direction to the .respondents to count the entire period of non-combatant service of 2 years 26 days as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army Pioneer Corps as a Non-combatant on 4th January, 1962. Subsequently he was enrolled as Combatant Pioneer in the same Corps on 17th August, 1964. It is alleged that while working in the rank of a Naik in the 598. Intelligence and Field Security Coy. 23, Mountain Division, the petitioner was discharged from Army Services on administrative grounds on 3rd August, 1977 with the remark that his services are no longer required. The petitioner made representation for extension of Combatant Army Service till its completion of pensionable service of 15 years, but his representation was ignored. According to the petitioner, on the date of discharge, he had altogether rendered 15 years and 7 months qualifying colour service from 14th January 62 to 3rd August 1977. However, he had put in 2 years and 26 days as a non-combatant service. As the petitioner had put in 14 years and 98 days he was not entitled to full pension because full pension is given only on completion of 15 years qualifying service. Subsequently, on 25th January, 1982 a Circular was issued stipulating that the non-combatant service shall also be counted towards the pensionable service. The said circular is Annexure P-4 which reads as under : "1. I am directed to refer to our O.M. No. 72993/PNRB/D3/1377-C/D (GS-1) dated 17 Apr. 64 and in partial modification convey the sanction of the President for counting of full non-combatant service towards pension in respect of serving Pioneers (GD) of Pioneer Corps. 2. The expenditure involved will be debitable to the relevant Heads of the Defence Service Estimates. 3. This letter is issued with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Defence) vide their U.O. No. 0691/116-S/PD of 1981." Thereafter the case of the petitioner was again processed, but vide communication (Annexure P-6) it was clarified that since the notification dated 25th January, 1982 it was only applicable to those who were in service on 25th January, 1982. Since the petitioner was discharged in 1977, he was outside the perview of the said Government letter. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the validity of notification being discriminatory. Since the petitioner was discharged in 1977, he was outside the perview of the said Government letter. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the validity of notification being discriminatory. A reply has been filed by the respondents. The respondents have pleaded that the notification dt. 25th January, 1982 has come into force on 25th January, 1982 and the petitioner having discharged in 1977 is not covered by it. The petitioner is not entitled for service pension as he had only 14 years and 98 days as qualifying service. It is also putforth that the notification is valid in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no justification for making a distinction between two categories of employees, namely, the persons who are serving and other who have already retired. Learned counsel submitted that this distinction of serving and non-serving made by this communication is discriminatory and arbitrary. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [ AIR 1983 SC 130 ]. The decision in the case of D.S. Nakara had been considered by the Apex Court in several decisions. We need not to discuss here. Suffice it to say that recently in the case of V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and another [ AIR 1999 SC 81 ] : "22. However, if an employee at the time of his retirement is not eligible for earning pension and stands outside the class of pensioners, if subsequently by amendment of relevant pensions Rules any beneficial umbrella of pension scheme is extended to cover a new class of pensioners and when such a subsequent scheme comes into force the erstwhile non-pensioner might have survived, then only if such extension of pension scheme to erstwhile non-pensioners is expressly made retrospective by the authorities promulgating such scheme; the erstwhile non-pensioner who has retired prior to the advent of such extended pension scheme can claim benefit of such a new extended pension scheme. If such new scheme is prospective only, old retirees non-pensioners cannot get the benefit of such a scheme even if they survive such new scheme. They will remain outside its sweep. The decisions of this Court covering such second category of cases are : Commander, Head Quarter, Calcutta v. Capt. If such new scheme is prospective only, old retirees non-pensioners cannot get the benefit of such a scheme even if they survive such new scheme. They will remain outside its sweep. The decisions of this Court covering such second category of cases are : Commander, Head Quarter, Calcutta v. Capt. Biplabendra Chandra (1997) 1 SCC 208 ; [1997 AIR SCW 2564] (supra) and Govt. of Tamil Nadu v. K. J ayaraman, (1997) 9 SCC 606 ; (1997 AIR SCW 1434) (supra) and others to which we have made a reference earlier. If the claimant for pension benefits satisfactorily brings his case within the first category of cases he would be entitled to get the additional benefits of pension computation even if he might have retired prior to enforcement of such additional beneficial provisions. But if on the other hand the case of a retired employee falls in the second category, the fact that he retired prior to the relevant date of coming into operation of the new scheme would disentitle him from getting such a new benefit." In the case at hand the latter circular does not cover the class to which the petitioner belongs. It is only those who have retired after 1982 are eligible to get the benefit of Annexure P-4. The aforesaid circular being prospective in nature it would hold that retirees non-pensioners cannot get the benefit of such a scheme. As has been laid down in the case of V. Kasturi (supra) these types of persons would remain outside the sweep of the scheme. In view of our foregoing discussion we find no merit in the petition it is dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.