B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is preferred against the order of a learned Single Judge rejecting the plea of the writ petitioners for the extension of pensionary benefits akin to the other employees of Andhra Pradesh Khadi and village Industries Board retiring after the cut-off date 1-4-1993. ( 2 ) THERE were originally 16 writ petitioners who filed this Writ Appeal. But, since writ petitioner/writ Appellant No. 16 died, his legal representatives have been brought on record as writ appellants 17 to 22. We refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioners were the employees of the 2nd respondent i. e. , Andhra Pradesh khadi and Village Industries Board, hereinafter called as "the Board". They had retired before 1-4-1993. Way back on 16-11-1983, the Board had passed a resolution that its employees be treated as government servants for all purposes including that of extending the pensionary benefits under Andhra Pradesh Revised pension Rules, 1980 and forwarded the said resolution to the Government for its approval. Since there was no reply from the government, the Board again passed another resolution on 25-1-1984 and as there was no response yet, the Board had passed yet another resolution dated 27-10-1984 reiterating its request for accepting the recommendation under the Resolution dated 16-11-1983. Even when these two reminders dated 25-1-1984 and 27-10-1984 did not yield any results, the Board passed another resolution dated 18-5-1987 and it was only on 6-7-1994, G. O. Ms. No. 279 industries and Commerce (SES-I) department, was issued making A. P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 applicable to the employees of the Board with effect from 1-4-1993 and not to its personnel who had retired before the said date. The said governmental decision prompted the filing of the writ petition. ( 4 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, the petitioners through their Senior Counsel, mr. M. V. Ramana Reddy, had relied upon the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the supreme Court in D. S. Nakara vs. Union of india. But, a distinction was sought by the learned Counsel Mr. V. T. M. Prasad, appearing for the Board relying upon another judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Krishena Kumar vs. Union of India. But, a distinction was sought by the learned Counsel Mr. V. T. M. Prasad, appearing for the Board relying upon another judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Krishena Kumar vs. Union of India. The learned Counsel for the board also relied upon the judgment in a. I. Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association vs. Union of India. Accepting the contention of the learned Counsel for the Board that the proposition in D. S. Nakara s case (supra) is distinguishable, it was held that the employees who had retired before 1-4-1993 formed a distinct class than those who retired later to the said date and as such, there was no discrimination and that equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of indian Constitution was not violated. The writ petitioners also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Azamathulla Khan vs. State of A. P. , and the judgment rendered by the Bombay High court in Chhoteylal Devilal Sharma vs. Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay in w. P. No. 1034 of 1986. ( 5 ) MR. M. V. Ramana Reddy, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated the same contentions advanced before the learned Single Judge and same were countered by Mr. V. T. M. Prasad, the learned Counsel for the Board, relying upon not only the decision in Krishena Kumar vs. Union of India (supra), but also on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in v. Kasturi vs. Managing Director, SBI, bombay and State of W. B. vs. Monotosh Roy6. In D. S. Nakara s case (supra), the Supreme court was dealing with Central Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The liberalised Pension Scheme was introduced effective from 31st March, 1979 in respect of central Government servants covered by 1972 Rules and the same was also extended in respect of Defence personnel who became/become non-effective on or after 1-4-1979. Result was that Central government servants who retired before 31st March, 1979 and the Defence personnel who became non-effective before 1-4-1979 were not made eligible, for the amount under the liberalised pension scheme. Result was that Central government servants who retired before 31st March, 1979 and the Defence personnel who became non-effective before 1-4-1979 were not made eligible, for the amount under the liberalised pension scheme. The contention on behalf of the petitioners was that even though they had retired before the cut-off date mentioned supra, they constituted the homogeneous group with the personnel retired on or after the above cut-off dates and that creating a class by imposing a cut-off date violates equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the constitution. The argument advanced on behalf of the Union of India that cut-off date was reasonable and that personnel retired before the cut-off dates formed a distinct group was repelled. The Supreme Court directed that all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules and Army Pension regulations be paid the pension as computed under the liberalised Pension Scheme from the specified date irrespective of their date of retirement. In Krishena Kumar vs. Union of india (supra), another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court distinguished the proposition laid down in D. S. Nakara s case (supra) stating that conferring further benefits in an existing scheme is different from introducing a new scheme and that contributory Provident Fund Scheme was the old scheme and that pension scheme was a new scheme providing option for the railway employees to switch over to pension scheme from a specified cut-off date and the provision relating to cut-off date was not discriminatory. In the said case, the cut-off date was 1-4-1986 and the employees who were in-service as on that date were given the right to exercise the option either to remain in the old Central provident Fund Scheme or switch over to new pension scheme. The propositions laid down by the later Supreme Court judgments in A. I. Reserve Bank Retired officers Association vs. Union of India (supra) and V. Kasturi vs. Managing director, S. B. I. Bombay (supra) are also to the same effect. The propositions laid down by the later Supreme Court judgments in A. I. Reserve Bank Retired officers Association vs. Union of India (supra) and V. Kasturi vs. Managing director, S. B. I. Bombay (supra) are also to the same effect. In fact, there is a slight departure in the decision in State of West bengal vs. Monotosh Roy (supra) where it was held that even in respect of the conferment of further benefits in an existing scheme, a distinction can be drawn having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the said case, Judicial Officer who has retired before the cut-off date i. e. , 1-1-1986 was negatived of his claim for computation of pension on the basis of merger of Dearness Allowance on the ground that such claim would exceed even the pay of the said retiree, which is opposed to pension scheme, as pension cannot be equated to the pay. So, the settled legal position is that there can be a cut-off date, if there is nexus for the object to be achieved and having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned above, it cannot be said that the cut-off date mentioned in the impugned G. O. 279, dated 6-7-1994 as 1-4-1993 cannot be said to be discriminatory on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. But, there is a different angle to this case and that is the delay of the Government in considering the resolution of the Board and such delay is not in days or months, but in years i. e. 9 years after the first resolution was passed with three reminders and resolutions thereafter. In this context, we feel bound to refer to the current judgment on the subject relating to similarly situated employees of the Khadi and Village Commission of States of Maharashtra and Punjab which has been constituted pursuant to the Khadi and village Industries Commission Act, 1956, as that of A. P. Khadi and Village Industries board Act, 1958. In W. P. No. 1034 of 1986, the Bombay High Court was dealing with a similar issue regarding the validity of the cut-off date i. e. , 27th September, 1984 for extending the pensionary benefits. For such personnel of Khadi and Village Industries, commissioner of Bombay, who had retired before 27-9-1984, the pension scheme was not made applicable. In W. P. No. 1034 of 1986, the Bombay High Court was dealing with a similar issue regarding the validity of the cut-off date i. e. , 27th September, 1984 for extending the pensionary benefits. For such personnel of Khadi and Village Industries, commissioner of Bombay, who had retired before 27-9-1984, the pension scheme was not made applicable. The :vrit petitioners therein who had retired after 30th October, 1980 laid a claim stating that inasmuch as the Khadi and Village Industries commission, Bombay had passed resolution on 30th October, 1980 to confer pensionary benefits on its employees and as there was unexplained delay of four years for the Government to accord sanction for such resolution, the employees cannot be faulted and they shall not suffer for tne lapses of the Government and extended the pensionary benefits to the petitioners with a cut-off date as 30-10-1980. The said judgment rendered on 19-9-1986 had become final and the Government of maharashtra had issued Standing Order implementing the said Judgment. When similar question fell for consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in w. P-No. 9584 of 1987, a learned Single judge had not only relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court mentioned above, but went further and held that the writ petitioners therein who had retired even in the years 1976 and 1978 were entitled for the pensionary benefits. By doing so, the learned Single Judge had quashed the Standing Order wherein the cut-off date for operation of pension scheme has been mentioned as 30-10-1980. It is pertinent to mention that this Judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by a division Bench of Punjab and Haryana high Court in L. P. A. No. 135/1989 and even though the said judgment was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court in s. L. P. (Civil)No. 532/90, the said S. L. P. was dismissed on 8-1-1991. It is a settled law that while considering the effect of judicial precedents, such judicial precedents which are current on the issue are entitled to more weight than general propositions. It is a settled law that while considering the effect of judicial precedents, such judicial precedents which are current on the issue are entitled to more weight than general propositions. As stated above, similar employees of Khadi and village Industries, regardless of the territory, be it Punjab, Maharashtra or andhra Pradesh, have to be treated similarly and in view of the finality of the issue with regard to extension of the pensionary benefits to the similar personnel of Maharashtra and Punjab and Haryana khadi and Village Commission regardless of the cut-off date, the appellants, who are similarly situated, shall be entitled for pensionary benefits on par with the personnel of the Board, who retired on or after 1-4-1993. If any benefits to which the writ appellants were not entitled under the pension Scheme operative from 1-4-1993, the writ appellants had to refund the same to the Board and the Board in that regard can issue a notice, make an enquiry and take a decision. ( 6 ) THE Writ Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.