JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was employed in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, a statutory authority created under the Statute. It was governed by certain service conditions in regard to terminal/retiral benefits. Upto 31.10.1993, the terminal benefits was as under:- "Provident Fund SBBJ (Officers) Regulations, 1979 48(1) Unless otherwise directed by the competent authority and subject to the provisions of the rules of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Employees Provident Fund, every officer shall become a member of the said fund, and shall subscribe and agree to be bound by the rules of the fund. (2) The Bank shall contribute to the Provident Fund in accordance with the rules governing the Provident Fund from time to time, provided that the amount contributed by it shall be not more than 8⅓ per cent of the pay of the officer." 2. The petitioner retired. He was paid the provident fund contribution by the bank of his retirement on 30.6.1989 in the following manner : (i) 30.6.89, Rs. 72,050.60 (ii) 1.10.91, Rs. 3,192.20 (Without interest on delayed payment). This payment was made as an arrears on account of revision of pay with effect from 1st November, 1987 to 30.6.1989.' 3. With effect from 1st November, 1993, the Pension Scheme had come into force in place of Provident Fund as adopted by the Bank by way of Regulations and those regulations were to apply to all the employees retiring on or after 1.1.1986 but before 1.11.1993, provided that such retiree applies for it on the format prescribed by the Bank and refund by the date, the Bank's entire contribution of the provident fund including interest received with further simple interest @ 6% from the date of withdrawal of provident fund amount till the date of refund. The relevant regulation of 1993 as enumerated in the writ petition is reproduced as under - "(i)(ii) - These Regulations (Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1993) shall come into force with effect from 1st November, 1993. The relevant regulation of 1993 as enumerated in the writ petition is reproduced as under - "(i)(ii) - These Regulations (Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1993) shall come into force with effect from 1st November, 1993. (3) Application These Regulations shall apply to - (iii) By way of special dispensation to employees who retired on or after 1.1.1986 but before 1.11.1993 provided that such retired employees apply to it on the format prescribed by the Bank and refund by the date decided by the Bank, the Bank's entire contribution to the Provident Fund including interest received with further simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of withdrawal of the provident fund amount till the date of refund." 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the charging of interest @ 6% on the provident fund amount w.e.f. 1.7.1989 to 31.10.1993 (52 months) is un- constitutional and bad in the eyes of law, as the petitioner is deprived of an amount of Rs. 391/- p.m. out of Rs. 782/- earned per month by way of interest on the total provident fund paid to the petitioner as retiral benefits. It is the submission that charge of interest @ 6% should have been from 1.11.1993 and not from the date of retirement. The petitioner submit that even he has been denied the dearness allowance relief as compared to those employees who retire on or after 1.11.1993. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that from 1.7.1989 to 31.10.1993, the charging of interest on provident fund is wholly unconstitutional inasmuch as it snatches away the fundamental right of enjoying the fruits and retiral benefits. It is the contention of the petitioner that if at all the bank is to charge any amount as an interest on the refund it could only be made applicable from 1.11.1993, @ 6% i.e. date from which the scheme of payment of pension is introduced. An additional affidavit has been filed on 21.4.1998 to the effect that while implementing the pension scheme, the arrears of pension from 4.11.1993 to January 1996, an amount of Rs. 1,17,754.89 and a sum of Rs. 89,250/- towards the commutation of pension has been paid and out of the said amount, the bank's contribution towards the provident fund of an amount of Rs. 77,104/- along with interest on the above said amount i.e. Rs. 26,613.55 aggregating of Rs. 1,17,754.89 and a sum of Rs. 89,250/- towards the commutation of pension has been paid and out of the said amount, the bank's contribution towards the provident fund of an amount of Rs. 77,104/- along with interest on the above said amount i.e. Rs. 26,613.55 aggregating of Rs. 1,03,717.55 has been recovered from the payment made above, i.e. from the arrears of pension the contribution towards provident fund of the bank along with interest has been deducted. 6. A reply has been filed by the respondent to the effect that the petitioner had opted to accept the pension scheme and, therefore, he is now estopped from challenging the same. It is further submitted that the said regulations are based on settlement arrived at between the management of the bank on the one hand and workers union on the other hand under the Industrial Disputes Act and a cut off date had been fixed for payment of pensionary benefits as was agreed by both the parties i.e. 1.11.1993. It is further submitted that the pension regulations have come into force w.e.f. 29.9.1995 and notified date had been given as the date on which the pension regulations were to be published in the official gazette and the regulations were published on 23.3.1996. The regulations apply to the categories of employees (i) who had retired on or after 1.1.1986, but before 1.11.1993 and to the employees who had retired on or after 1.1.1993 and some other categories as per Regulation 3(1)(a). The case of the petitioner falls in class (i) of the classified category. He had retired before 1.11.1993. It is further submitted in the written statement that the petitioner had withdrawn the bank's contribution from the provident fund and utilised the provident fund for himself and in case he wants to avail the pension benefits, he had to refund the amount of Bank's contribution to the pension trust with nominal simple interest @ 6% p.a. It is further submitted that the petitioner had actually earned the interest @ 12% on the fund which actually belonged to the bank in view of the regulations and in such a situation, if for the period when the petitioner had benefited himself by taking the interest on the said fund, the petitioner should not be allowed to make out any grudge for charging of 6% interest. 7. 7. The arguments have been addressed only on the point of charging of 6% interest on the refund amount. 8. In a case reported in Union of India v. P.N. Menon, 1994(4) SCC 68 : AIR 1994 SC 2221 : 1994(4) SCT 91 (SC), the Supreme Court had observed as under - "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. 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. No scheme can be held to be foolproof, so as to cover and keep in view all persons who were at one time in active service. As such the concern of the Court should only be, while examining any such grievance, to see, as to whether a particular date for extending a particular benefit or scheme, has been fixed, on objective and rational considerations. If the stand of the respondents is to be accepted that the scheme contained in the O.M. should have been made available, without there being a cut off date, to all including those who have retied even 20 to 25 years before the introduction of the scheme, then the whole scheme shall be unworkable, because it is linked with the payment of dearness allowance, which is based on the level of price index. The decision to merge a part of the dearness allowance with pay, when the price index level was at 272, appears to have been taken on basis of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. In this background, it cannot be said that the date 30.9.1977, was picked out in an arbitrary or irrational manner, without proper application of mind. The decision to merge a part of the dearness allowance with pay, when the price index level was at 272, appears to have been taken on basis of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. In this background, it cannot be said that the date 30.9.1977, was picked out in an arbitrary or irrational manner, without proper application of mind. The option given to employees, who retired on a after 30.9.1977 but not later than 30.4.1979, to exercise an option to get their pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity calculated by excluding the element of dearness pay as indicated in the aforesaid office memorandum or to get it included in their pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, was not an exercise to create a class within a class. The decision having a nexus with the price index level at 272, which it reached on 30.9.1977 was just and valid. It has been rightly pointed out that respondents had never been in receipt of dearness pay and as such the office memorandum in question could not have been applied to them. Similarly, the encashment of leave was a new scheme introduced which could not have been extended retrospectively to respondents, who had retired before the introduction of the said scheme. Same can be said even in respect of family pension scheme which was earlier contributory, but with effect from 22.9.1977 the scheme was made non-contributory. The respondents not being in service on the said date, were not eligible for the said benefit and no question of refunding the amount which had already been contributed by them, did arise". 9. In the case of Hari Ram Gupta v. State of U.P., 1998(6) SCC 328 : 1998(3) SCT 773 (SC), it was held that Nakara's case, 1983(1) SCC 305 was considered in subsequent Constitutional Bench because in Krishena Kumar case, 1990(4) SCC 207 and was explained that the pension retirees and provident fund retirees do not form one homogeneous class. On the other hand, rules governing provident fund and its contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. It is, therefore, not reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to provident fund retirees. On the other hand, rules governing provident fund and its contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. It is, therefore, not reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to provident fund retirees. It has also been held in Krishena Kumar case, 1990(4) SCC 207 that the rights of each individual retiree finally crystallise on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remains in case of those who are governed by provident fund rules, whereas in case of pension retirees, the obligation continues till the death of an employee. The Supreme Court categorically held that Nakara could be an authority for the decision in Krishena Kumar case, 1990(4) SCC 207 . In subsequent decisions also, it has been held that whenever Government or any other State authority frames scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, it is not always possible due to many constraints to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the date of superannuation. Any revised scheme in respect of post-retirement benefits, if implemented with cut-off date, which is reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14, need not be held to be invalid. 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. "Therefore, the appellant having superannuated prior to the Rules coming into force, cannot claim the right to pension under the Rules with the help of Nakara case, 1983(1) SCC 305 and further, in view of the conclusion that the Rules do not have any retrospective operation, the relief sought by the appellant to get pension under the Rules cannot be granted." 10. There is no dispute that a cut-off date can be fixed by the State while framing the scheme. In the present case, the cut-off date for the class of employees belonging to the petitioner category has been fixed as 1.11.1993. The employees retiring on or after 1.11.1993 are entitled to the pensionary benefits from the date of their retirement, but in the present case, the employees who had retired prior to 1.11.1993 have been made entitled to the retiral benefits of pension from 1.11.1993 itself. There is no dispute about such fixing of the cut off date. The employees retiring on or after 1.11.1993 are entitled to the pensionary benefits from the date of their retirement, but in the present case, the employees who had retired prior to 1.11.1993 have been made entitled to the retiral benefits of pension from 1.11.1993 itself. There is no dispute about such fixing of the cut off date. Such class of employees who have retired prior to 1.11.1993 had been paid the provident fund. In the case of the petitioner who retired on 1.7.1989, he was paid the provident fund of the employer's shares as well, he will have to pay back not only the employers's share, but also the interest on the same w.e.f. 1.7.1989 @ 6% to be calculated 1.7.1989 i.e. the date of retirement. This seems to be unjustified so far the retirees prior to 1.11.1993 are concerned. The consequence would be that from the date of retirement in the present case from 1.7.1989 to 31.3.1993, the petitioner would be paying an interest on the amount which is to be refunded by him without availing any benefit of pension. It shall be a vacuum period for the petitioner when neither he receives the provident fund as it is to be refunded along with the interest 6% on the pension. The contention of the petitioner seems to be justified. There is no dispute that while switching over to pension scheme the provident fund received in regard to employer's share as per Regulation is to be refunded. Had the pension scheme been made applicable from the date of retirement of the petitioner, there would have been no dispute and no cause for the petitioner to make any grievance, but for the reason that the benefit of pension is to be made applicable in the case of the petitioner from 1.11.1993, directing him to pay interest over the provident fund which was received by him at the time of retirement even though utilised by him would amount to a discriminatory treatment for the class of employees retiring between the date of 1.1.1986 to 1.11.1993. They would return the amount of provident fund whichever was received by them as per the Regulation, but to say that they would also pay interest @ 6% from the date of retirement till the pension scheme being made applicable to such class of retirees would be hard on such retirees. They would return the amount of provident fund whichever was received by them as per the Regulation, but to say that they would also pay interest @ 6% from the date of retirement till the pension scheme being made applicable to such class of retirees would be hard on such retirees. They were given the provident fund because of earlier regulations and it cannot be said that it was any gainful receipt by them. It the retiral scheme has been made applicable to such retirees, the retirees prior to 1.11.1993, they cannot be penalised doubly i.e. for granting the retiral benefit from 1.11.1993 by fixing the cut-off date which according to law can be fixed and also to pay interest on the refund of the provident fund which was given to the persons like the petitioner at the time of their retirement when new regulation scheme was not in force. 11. In my opinion, charging of interest @ 6% in the regulation is not justified. In the present case, as per the affidavit of the petitioner on the refund of bank's contribution of Rs. 77,104/- along with interest, another interest of an amount of Rs. 26,613.55 was also charged, upto 1.4.1995. The petitioner has been paid the arrears of pension from November, 1993 and was bound to pay interest from 1.11.1993 till the actual refund is made, meaning thereby the 6% interest is not chargeable from the date of retirement till 31.10.1993, but is chargeable from 1.11.1993. Only to that extent in my opinion the action of the respondent cannot be sustained. 12. In regard to the objection of the respondent that the petitioner is estopped from challenging for the reason that he had given an option as per the regulation, the objection cannot be sustained for the reason that there was no option left for the petitioner in view of the regulations and the regulations can be challenged if it violates the right of the petitioner. 13. 13. For the above said discussion and in view of the fact that the pension scheme has been made applicable to class of retirees from 1.11.1993, no interest @ 6% as per regulation could be charged from such retirees from the date of retirement till 31.10.1993, in that situation such retirees shall be left with no benefit whatever i.e. neither the pension from the date of retirement till 31.10.1993, nor bank's share in the provident fund. The bank's share could only be returned from the date when the pension scheme was made applicable to the petitioner i.e. 1.11.1993 and in such situation the action of the respondent in charging the interest from the class of the employees respondent in the regulation for refund of the amount of bank's share along with interest @ 6% from the date of retirement till the pension scheme is made applicable to the petitioner on subsequent date i.e. 31.10.1993 is discriminatory and arbitrary and is quashed. However, after the enforcement of the scheme of pension by fixing a deemed date of 1.11.1993, the respondent shall be entitled to the charge of interest on the refund of bank's share at the rate of 6% p.a. 14. With the above-said observations, the writ petition is allowed only to the extent as mentioned above. No other ground has been argued. No costs.Petition partly allowed. *******