By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the office memorandum No. F.8(ll)-Fin(G)/99 dated 25.3.1999 and also sought for a direction allowing the equal retiral benefit to all the pensioners who retired on any date between 1.10.1998 and 31.12.1998 at par with those who retired between 1.1.1996 and 30.9.1998 2. The case in short is that the Govt of Tripura, the respondent No. 1 in exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made a Rules called Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ROP, 1999) commencing from 1.1.1996 whereby the pay structure of the employees serving under the Govt of Tripura and including the employees of Govt undertaking of the State have been revised. But, subsequently, by the impugned office memorandum bearing No. F.8.(II)-Fin(G)/99 dated 25.3.99 made some amendment regarding the rate of pension, mode of pension, entitlement of leave encashment benefit, rate of communication etc and in issuing the said office memorandum the respondent classified the pensioners in two groups; (i) who retired between 1.1.1996 and 30.9.1998 and another who retired thereafter (from 1.10.1998). The petitioners being the pensioners retired on different dates after 30.9.1998 challenged this office memorandum on the ground of arbitrary classification having no rational nexus with any bonafide object to be achieved and hostile discrimination. 3. The State-respondent filed counter contending inter alia, that the State Govt having full competence fixed a cut off date for different treatment to be extended to the employees retired up to 30.9.1998 and the employees retired with effect from 1.10.199 8 so far the actual payment of pensioner benefit is concerned though so far fixation of pensionary benefit, of course, notional basis is concerned, no classification was made. The counter affidavit contains that the said classification has been done in conformity and consistent with the classification already done by the ROP 1999 and that was done having regard to the financial crunch of the State exchequer. But, since the related provision of ROP, 1999 have not been put under challenge, the office memorandum being a follow up clarificatory memo cannot be put under challenge without having challenge the original provision providing in the ROP, 1999. 4. Heard Mr. BR Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate General, for the State being assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. 4. Heard Mr. BR Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate General, for the State being assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. DK Biswas learned, counsel for the petitioner at length. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. DK Biswas, submitted that the Sate Govt while making the ROP, 1999 has not classified its employees in any groups so far it relates to the benefit provided to the employees. But, in issuing the impugned memorandum the State Govt classified the pensioners into two groups; one who retired during the period between 1.1.1996 and 30.9.1998 and another between 1.10.1998 to 31.12.1998 and, as such, the classification according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is unreasonable, arbitrary having no nexus with any bonafide object to be achieved. By the impugned office memorandum dated 25.3.99, the pension and/or family pension of the employees who retired from service on different date between 1.1.1996 and 30.9.1998 their pensionary amount would be notionally fixed with effect from the date of retirement and would not be paid any arrear of pension and the arrear would be payable for the period commencing from 1.10.1998 and those who would retire on different date and from 1.10.98 would be paid all pensionary benefits as per the revised pay scale in ROP, 1999. The petitioner made a grievance on such discrimination. 6. The learned Advocate General having referred Rule 12 (b) and (c) of ROP, 1999 submits that this classification of the pensioners who retired on any date between 1.1.1996 and 30.9.1998 and their pensionary amount would be notionally fixed having regard to their date of retirement with no payment of arrears and the arrears would be paid with effect from 1.10.98 and the employees who retired after 30.9.1998 would get arrears of pensionary benefit having regard to the revised pay scale under ROP, 1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such type of classification even in the ROP, 1999 is hostile, unreasonable and arbitrary and having no rational basis. The learned Advocate General submits that unless the related provision of ROP, 1999 is put under challenge, such type of attack as made by the petitioner is not entertainable at all. I have paid serious consideration to the entire provision of Rule 12 of the ROP. Rule 12 (a) deals with the fixation and payment of arrears etc of the employees in service. I have paid serious consideration to the entire provision of Rule 12 of the ROP. Rule 12 (a) deals with the fixation and payment of arrears etc of the employees in service. Rule 12 (b) and (c) deals with the matter relating to pensionary benefit. From Rule 12 (a) it appears that the revised pay would be applicable with effect from 1.1.1996 so far fixation is concerned but so far actual payment of arrear is concerned that is payable from 1.10.1998. The fixation of pay in the revised pay scale would be done having regard to the pre-revised scale as on 1.1.1996 and after fixation on 1.1.996 the classification would proceed notionally with no payment of arrear up to 30.9.98 and arrear would be paid only from 1.10.98. The pensioners are also classified accordingly, those who retired between 1.1.1996 and 30.9.1998. they are classified as one group and those who retired on and after 1.10.1998 is classified as another group. So in classification of the pensioners in two groups, the manner of classification, the existing employees as done under clause 12 (a) was followed and, thus the classification appears to be reasonable. More so, the classification done under provision of Rule 12 of ROP, 1999 has not been challenged by the petitioner. This being the position, so far fixation of payment, arrear of pension/family pension are concerned, the impugned memorandum appears to be of nothing a new but only clarificatory one having consistently and conformity with the Rule 12 of the ROP, 1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referred a decided case of Hon'ble Apex Court in DS Nakara & others vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 and submits that in making classification among the employees the authority has no right to cause micro-classification among the employees in order to extend different benefits to the different micro group employees. This decision may be of useful had the ROP, 1999 itself been to be under challenge. This decision may be of useful had the ROP, 1999 itself been to be under challenge. Since the impugned memorandum introduced nothing a new but made a clarification having consistently and conformity with the provision of Rule 12 of ROP, 1999 classification done by the impugned memorandum cannot be examined in isolation but since the origin of the classification provided in the ROP, 1999 itself has not been put under challenge the supplementary impugned memorandum by which mere clarification was provided cannot be held to be arbitrary in isolation and thus the afore cited decision of Nakara has no manner of application in the case in hand. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far the leave encashment benefit is concerned, the impugned memorandum made classification among the pensioners and according to the clause (e) of the impugned memorandum the pensioner who retired from service on or after 1.1.1999 would be entitled leave encashment benefit for 300 days, meaning thereby the employees retired prior to 1.1.1999 would not be entitled to leave encashment benefit for 3 00 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without causing any amendment to Tripura State Civil Service Leave Rules, 1986, the respondent has no authority to make any change or alteration by issuing the impugned memorandum. Under Rule 35 of the Tripura State Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1986, the leave encashment benefit to a retired employee was for a maximum period of 240 days that was amended extends it to the maximum period of 300 days by way of amendment of the Leave Rules, 1986 vide notification dated 30.1.1999 and, by this notification the maximum ceiling of accumulated leave to be enhanced/increased from 240 days to 300 days with effect from 1.1.1999, that office memorandum dated 30.1,1999 has not been put under challenge and, as such it reveals that in issuing the impugned memorandum dated 25.3.1999 the State Govt introduced nothing a new but reproduced what was done in the Leave Rules, 1986 itself. 8. This being the legal position, I find no discrimination or unreasonable treatment extended to the pensioners in making them into two groups so far leave encashment benefit is concerned. 8. This being the legal position, I find no discrimination or unreasonable treatment extended to the pensioners in making them into two groups so far leave encashment benefit is concerned. Those who retired on or before 1.1.1999 was allowed leave encashment benefit for 240 days but those who retired after 1.1.1999 has been allowed leave encashment benefit for maximum 300 days and that was done rightly and consonant with the Leave Rules and that Rules have not been put under challenge before this Court. 9. Regarding percentage of commutation of pension is concerned under paragraph F of the impugned memorandum dated 25.3.1999 the retired employees classified into two groups. The percentage of communication of pension has been increased to the extent of 40% instead of prevailing 33 1/3 % with effect from 1. 1.1999 meaning thereby the employees retired or would retire on and after 1.1.1999 are allowed to commute 40% of the pension amount while person retired earlier (prior to 1.1.1999) their commutation is confined to 1/3 of the pension. As per the prevailing provisions of related Pension Rules the employees retired prior to 1.1.1999 had been given liberty to commutation the pension amount to the maximum amount of 1/3 that right was undoubtedly a vested right to the petitioner who retried prior to 1.1.1999. The enhancement of the ceiling up to the 40% limit has been provided to the employees retired from 1.1.1999 i.e. the additional benefit allowed to the employees who retired on or after 1.1.1999 and the employees retired prior to that date should not have any grievance to that additional benefit allowed to their colleagues who retired subsequently. In the same manner the upper ceiling limit of gratuity amount has been fixed not exceeding Rs.2 lakhs for the employees with effect from 1.1.1999 meaning thereby the employees who retired prior to that date would be governed by the prevailing rate of gratuity with prevailing ceiling limit corresponding to the date of their respective retirement. The ceiling limit and the rate of gratuity had been enhanced by the impugned notification with effect from 1.1.1999 allowing current pensioners who retired on and from 1.1.1999 would be more benefited. The ceiling limit and the rate of gratuity had been enhanced by the impugned notification with effect from 1.1.1999 allowing current pensioners who retired on and from 1.1.1999 would be more benefited. That happened, such type of cut off date is obviously and inevitable in any service jurisprudence, Whenever a new scheme is introduced the new benefit by way of enhancing the earlier one or by way of additional benefit is provided, there must be some cut off date otherwise the employees retired decades ago, century ago would come with a claim of equal treatment. Reasonable classification is never prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution of India rather it is permissible but there must be some reasons behind. In the present case due to price hike inflation in money value and the financial crunch by the State Govt are the cumulative effect of such clarification. It is settled proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a decided case in K. Thimmappa & others vs. Chairman Central Board of Directors, SBI, reported in AIR 2001 SC 467 that none can expect a classification on scientific perfection, reasonable classification in broad sense is always permissible. In the present case the State Govt has taken care of the employees retired or to be retired after 1.1.1999. So far enhanced rate of gratuity with enhance rate of ceiling limit this has no way taken any vested right of the pensioners who superannuated prior to that date, their case has to had to obviously governed by the then prevailing rules regulating the gratuity matter and, as such, I am of the considered opinion that in issuing the impugned memorandum the respondent has not violated any provision of law and the classification so done by the impugned memorandum appears to be quite reasonable and justified. 10. In the result, having referred to the aforesaid discussion, I do not have any hesitation to hold that the impugned memorandum suffers from any illegality or irregularity requiring any interference from this Court. 11. In the result, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed having no order as to costs.