Honble SHARMA, J.–Common prayer of the petitioners in both these writ petitions is as under- (i) Regulations 3(i), (k) and Note below Regulation 3 (i) of the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations 1989 (for short 1989 Regulations) be declared to be ultravires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same may be struck down as such. (ii) Petitioner Shafique Ahmed and 49 members of the petitioner Rajasthan Parivahan Nigam Karamchari and Adhikari Kalyan Samiti named in Schedule appended to this writ petition who have retired prior to April 1, 1989 and families of 27 employees who have retired before April 1, 1989 and have died thereafter should be given pensionary benefits from the date of retirement. (2). Facts in brief are that the erstwhile Rajasthan State Roadways department of the Government of Rajasthan which was in existence upto Sept. 30, 1964 was converted into the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short RSRTC) with effect from October 1, 1964 under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation act, 1950 and the services of all the employees working in the erstwhile Rajasthan State Roadways department as on Sept. 30, 1964 were placed on deputation with the RSRTC with effect from October 1, 1964. The Government of Rajasthan issued to all individual employees of the erstwhile Rajasthan State Roadways department who were on deputation with the RSRTC that whether they intend to continue in Government service or whether they intend to opt for RSRTC service. The persons who were further asked whether they intend to opt for pensionary benefits of the Govt. of Rajasthan or whether they intend to opt for C.P.F. benefit as applicable to newly created RSRTC. (3). In response to the option notice certain Government employees had opted to continue in the Government service whereas certain others had opted for RSRTC. Sufficient number of employees submitted representation against the terms and conditions mentioned in the option notice. Looking to the representation against the option notice, the Government of Rajasthan had issued another option notice on February 1, 1967 to all remaining individual employees for exercising their option. (4). As a result of two option notice, certain Government employees opted to continue in Government and certain others had opted for RSRTC service. Those who opted to continue in Government Service were relieved from the RSRTC. (4). As a result of two option notice, certain Government employees opted to continue in Government and certain others had opted for RSRTC service. Those who opted to continue in Government Service were relieved from the RSRTC. Those who had opted for RSRTC services were declared RSRTC employees vide order dated June 30, 1966 with effect from July 1, 1966. The RSRTC employees were further divided into two categories as a result of their options for pensionary benefits or for C.P.F. benefits. Those who had opted for RSRTC service with pensionary benefits are being paid pension on their retirement by the State Government on the terms and conditions of the option notice. In all 470 employees opted for C.P.F. Out of them 373 employees are still working in the RSRTC and 49 employees have retired and 27 employees have died after retirement. Services of 9 employees were terminated while in service of RSRTC and 12 employees have resigned. (5). The grievance raised in the writ petitions is that the State Government had failed to fulfill the conditions of agreement and avoided to transfer the amount of past services of the employees on the pretext or the other. The RSRTC invited fresh options from the employees who opted for C.P.F. vide memorandum dated June 27, 1984 but the options were never acted upon. Once fresh options were invited on June 27, 1984, the past options became nullity and pensionary benefits cannot be denied on the ground that the employees had already exercised options. As per 1989 Regulations the employees who had retired prior to April 1, 1989 were deprived of the pensionary benefits whereas the employees who were working on April 1, 1989 were given pensionary benefits. (6). 1989 Regulations came into force w.e.f. April 1, 1989. According to these Regulations any person who was not covered under the definition of `Employee, shall not be entitled to opt for pensionary benefits. Relevant statutory provisions read thus- ``3.(i) ``Employee means any person who is in service of the Corporation but does not include daily labour, work charged employee and persons engaged on contract or retention cum fee, part time or any other basis as consultant advisor or counsels for legal, professional or any other purposes. Relevant statutory provisions read thus- ``3.(i) ``Employee means any person who is in service of the Corporation but does not include daily labour, work charged employee and persons engaged on contract or retention cum fee, part time or any other basis as consultant advisor or counsels for legal, professional or any other purposes. ``k) ``Existing Employee means an employee who is already in the regular time scale service of the Corporation on or before the commencement of the RSRTC pension and C.P.F. Regulations. ``Note : Any person who is not covered under the definition of employee shall not be entitled to opt for pensionary and gratuity benefits as per Corporation Rules/regulations. (7). Main contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that the classification sought on the basis of ``date April 1, 1989 is discriminatory. This date cannot be decisive for the purpose of giving pensionary benefits. While issuing 1989 Regulations the `date April 1, 1989 has been arbitrarily picked up. No event took place on April 1, 1989. The 1989 Regulations exfacie militate against the right of equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on D.S. Nakara vs. U.O.I. (1) and Puroshottam Lal vs. RSRTC (2). (8). Per contra the submission of RSRTC is that as the petitioners have not challenged the cut off date of the enforcement of the Regulations w.e.f. April 1, 1989 they are not entitled to any relief. it is further contended that the said dated is absolutely justified and reasonable. P.F. retiree and pension retiree constitute. P.F. retiree and pension retiree constitute two different classes therefore there is no discrimination. The petitioners who opted for CPF cannot claim the benefit of the pension scheme which came into existence much after their retirement. Reliance is placed on Krishna Kumar vs. U.O.I. (3), All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association vs. U.O.I. (4), Commander Headquarter Calcutta vs. Captain Biplabendra Chanda (5) and State of Rajasthan vs. Prem Raj. (6). (9). I have pondered over the rival submissions. (10). The thrust of Article 14 of the Constitution is that the citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. (6). (9). I have pondered over the rival submissions. (10). The thrust of Article 14 of the Constitution is that the citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Legislative and executive action may be sustained if it satisfied the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. In Ramana Daya Ram Shett vs. International Airport Authority (7), their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that a discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some principle which is itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. (11). In. D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (supra) Honble Supreme Court held that criterion of date of enforcement of the revised scheme entitling benefits of the revision to those retiring after specified date while depriving the benefits to those retiring prior to that date was violative of Article 14. It was indicated in para 65 thus- ``......with the expanding horizons of socio-ecomomic justice, the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria; `being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of `being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date in impugned memoranda, Exhibits P-1 and P-2, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down. Both the memoranda shall be enforced and implemented as read down as under: In other words in Exhibit. Both the memoranda shall be enforced and implemented as read down as under: In other words in Exhibit. P-1 the words: ``that in respect of the Government servants who were in service on the 31.03.1979 and retiring from service on or after that date and in Exhibit P-2 the words: ``the new rates of pension are effective from 1.04.1979 and will be applicable to all service officers who became/become non- effective on or after that date. are unconstitutional and are struck down with this specification that the date mentioned therein will be relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension scheme becomes operative to all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules irrespective of the date of retirement. (12). Constitution Bench of Honble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumars case (supra) indicated that the pension scheme and the P.F. Scheme are structurally different. Pension retirees and the P.F. retirees do not form a homogenous class and the classification among them would not be violative of Article 14. but the ratio propounded in Krishna Kumars case is not applicable to the instant cases. A look at Purushottam Lals case (supra) decided on January 19, 1990 goes to show that the RSRTC after accepting the recommendations of Beri Commission decided to give one more option to its employees who had opted for Contributory Provident Fund, to opt for pension. The memorandum in this regard was issued on June 27, 1984 according to which option for pension was to be furnished within three months. The memorandum proceeded further to state that even those employees who had retired after September 1, 1981 but before the issued of memorandum on June 27, 1984 and had taken the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund Rules they would also be entitled to opt for pension subject to the condition that they will have to refund the Contribution of Provident Fund. Purshottam Lal got retired on December 31, 1978 and at the time of retirement amount of Gratuity and Provident Fund was paid to him. Purushottam Lal and opted for the Provident Fund. This court in Purushottam Lals case held that the words ``after September 1, 1981 incorporated in memorandum dated June 27, 1984 were arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 126 of the Constitution of India. Purushottam Lal and opted for the Provident Fund. This court in Purushottam Lals case held that the words ``after September 1, 1981 incorporated in memorandum dated June 27, 1984 were arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 126 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly RSRTC was directed to provide Purushottam lal an opportunity to exercise his option for pension under memorandum dated June 27, 1984 irrespective of date of his retirement and irrespective of the fact whether he was in service or not. In the event of exercise of option the RSRTC was commanded to calculate the pension admissible to Puroshottam Lal on his depositing in lumpsum of the benefits of Provident Fund and Contribution amount. (13). Undeniably the judgment rendered in Purshottam Lals case has been implemented and pensionary benefits have been provided to Puroshottam Lal. The case of the petitioners is not distinguishable with that of the case of Purshottam Lal. Even otherwise I do not find any justifiable criterion to draw the line between those who retired earlier and those retired after April 1, 1989 in view of the memorandum dated June 27, 1984 whereby the RSRTC decided to give one more option to its employees who got already retired and received the amount of Provident Fund and Gratuity. All the employees who got retired prior to April 1, 1989 had served the RSRTC for a very long period and they had earned their legitimate expectation. It is not something that they seek as a begging bowl. In my considered opinion the employees for the purpose of receiving pension from a class and there is not criterion on which classification of employees retiring prior to April 1, 1989 and retiring subsequent to that date can provide a rational principle correlated to the object underlying payment of pension. The eligibility criteria devised by Regulations 3(i) (k) and Note below 3(i) of 1989 Regulations being thoroughly arbitrary, violates Article 14 and is struck down with the specifications that 1989 Regulations shall be applicable to all retired employees of RSRTC irrespective of their date of retirement. In other words the employees who got retired prior to April 1, 1989 shall also be entitled to pensionary benefits. (14). In other words the employees who got retired prior to April 1, 1989 shall also be entitled to pensionary benefits. (14). For the foregoing reasons both the writ petitions stand allowed and the respondent RSRTC is directed to accord the pensionary benefits to petitioner Shafique Ahmed and 49 members of the petitioner Samiti and families of 27 employees who go retired prior to April 1, 1989 employees who got retired prior to April 1, 1989 and died subsequently after adjusting the Contribution of Provident Fund paid to them from the arrears of pension. The pensionary benefits shall be calculated from the date of retirement of each employee under the provisions of 1989 Regulations along with the benefit of commutation of pension and other consequential reliefs. The parties shall bear their own costs.