Honble SHARMA, J.–Whether the beneficial umbrella of pension scheme can be extended to cover the employees who sought voluntary retirement prior to the advent of such scheme ? This common question falls for consideration in these writ petitions. (2). Regulation 29(1) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 (for short 1995 Regulations) reads and under: ``29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement- (1) on or after the 1st day of November 1993 at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the competent authority retire from service. Provided........ Aforesaid regulation clearly postulates that pension on the voluntary retirement is payable to those employees who sought voluntary retirement on or after 1.11.1995, after completion of 20 years of qualifying service. According to Regulation 1(b), these Regulations shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 29.9.1995. There is an identical provision in the State Bank of Saurashtra (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. (3). Admittedly much before the cut off date i.e. November 1, 1993 the petitioners S.R. Sunder (now dead) and H.C. Jain sought voluntary retirement. Common grievance projected by the petitioners is that Regulation 29(1) is arbitrary and the petitioners are entitled to pension even if they got retired prior to cut off date. The petitioners are aggrieved by the prospective introduction of pension scheme on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.11.1993. (4). After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that there is no arbitrariness in fixing the cut off date in Regulation 29(1). In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association vs. U.O. I (1) when the validity of the introduction of Pension Scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was challenged on the ground that bank employees who retired prior to 1.1.1986 have not been given the benefit of the said scheme, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that there is no arbitrariness in the same. (5). In Hari Ram Gupta (dead) through L.R. Kasturi Devi vs. State of U.P. (2) it was indicated by the Honble Supreme Court that where a scheme is framed 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. (5). In Hari Ram Gupta (dead) through L.R. Kasturi Devi vs. State of U.P. (2) it was indicated by the Honble Supreme Court that where a scheme is framed 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. (6). V. Kasturi vs. Managing Director State Bank of India (3) was the case wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that any beneficial umbrella of new pension scheme which is prospective, can not be extended to cover the old retirees non-pensioners. They will remain outside its sweep. (7). In Union of India vs. Lieut. (Mrs.) E. Iacats (4) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the respondent cannot claim the benefit of a scheme which came into operation from a date subsequent to the date of her retirement. (8). In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. R. Veerasamy (5), their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that no illegality was committed by the T.N.E. Board in introducing the pension scheme prospectively and the employees retired before 1.7.1986 can not compel the Board to extend the benefit of the newly introduced pension scheme with retrospective effect. The employees after their retirement cease to be employees of the Board and they form a separate class. The employees who retired from service before 1.7.1986 and those who were in employment on the said date cannot be treated alike as they do not belong to one class. (9). Case of A.P. Srivastava vs. U.O.I. (6) relied upon by Mr. Virendra Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable. In this case it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that if a temporary Government servant after rendering 20 years of service, is entitled to pension, if he voluntary retires, there is no justification for denying him pension as compulsory retirement is not a punishment. Virendra Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable. In this case it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that if a temporary Government servant after rendering 20 years of service, is entitled to pension, if he voluntary retires, there is no justification for denying him pension as compulsory retirement is not a punishment. Here in the cases on hand the petitioners are not entitled to pension in view of Regulation 29(1). (10). In view of what I have discussed herein above, it is difficult to agree with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. In my considered opinion prospective introduction of pension on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.11.1993 by Regulation 29(1) can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner who sought voluntary retirement prior to 1.11.1993 and those who were in employment on the said date can not be treated alike as they do not belong to one class and beneficial umbrella of pension scheme cannot be extended to cover them. They are not entitled to pension as they sought voluntary retirement prior to 1.11.1993. If the claim of pension of petitioner H.C. Jain was wrongly admitted by the respondent Bank at the initial stage, it does not create any right in his favour. After the mistake came to the notice of the Bank, it got the mistake corrected by closing the case. Similarly the widow of petitioner S.R. Sunder got herself impleaded after his death. But she is also not entitled to any relief in view of Regulation 29(1). (11). Resultantly, the writ petitions fail and stand dismissed. No costs.