JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J.: - By virtue of the present petition preferred under Article 226/227, Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following writ, order and/or directions:- (i) The condition as per para 2.8. of the Annexure P-2 may , be quashed and set aside as arbitrary, unfair and unjust; (ii) Respondent No. 1, Union of India be directed to include the petitioner and similarly situate persons to receive "One Time Increase (O.T.I.)" benefit in pension, who have not received any other pensionary benefits on their re-employment; (iii) The circular/Memo. No. PER-47 of 1994-95 issued by Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh (respondent No. 3) may be quashed and set aside as being arbitrary, unfair, unjust and irrational, whereby respondent No. 2 has imposed 1.11.1993 as a cut of date excluding all the previous cases from consideration for pensionary benefits; (iv) direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to include all the: previous cases who have retired prior to 1.11.1993 (on or after 1.1.1986) from Bank services on reaching the , age of superannuation after completion of 10 years of service, for grant of pensionary benefits, with effect from 1.1.1993, that is the date from which the pension scheme was introduced by the Bank; and (v) respondents be directed to award interest at the rate of 18% per annum on arrears of pension from the date of its due till the date of payment. 2. Shorn of details, the admitted facts of the case may be thus stated. The petitioner joined the Indian Army as a soldier on 7.12:1949! He rose to the rank of Havildar and upon having completed the term of his engagement, he was retired from Army on 6.7.1970 and was granted pension as admissible to him under the relevant Rules. 3. The petitioner thereafter joined State Bank of India in H.P. as a Clerk on 12.7.1971 and rose to the post of Officer, Junior Management Grade-I, on attaining the age of superannuation, that is, the age of 58 years, he retired from service of the Bank on 31.5.1990 after putting in 18 years 10 months and 20 days of service. No pension was granted to him on such retirement since as per the relevant rules of the Bank, the qualifying minimum service for pension was 20 years. No pension was granted to him on such retirement since as per the relevant rules of the Bank, the qualifying minimum service for pension was 20 years. Even the benefit of Army service rendered by him was not given to him since he had joined the services of the Bank after a lapse of more than 6 months from the date of retirement from Army. 4. One time increase in army pension was allowed by the respondent No. 1, Union of India, to all army personnels who had retired from Army before 1.1.1986. Such benefit was denied to the petitioner on the ground that he had undertaken civil employment with the Bank and had served such Bank for a period of more than 10 years. 5. The rules pertaining to pension formulated by the State Bank of India and as in force on the date of retirement of the petitioner from the services of the Bank prescribing the minimum qualifying service of 20 years for eligibility to the pension, came to be amended on 16.6.1997 vide Annexure "A" annexed to the reply affidavit of respondents No. 2 and 3 with retrospective effect from 1.1.1993. By virtue of such amendment the qualifying service for pension on and with effect from 1.1.1993 was reduced to ten years from twenty years. The petitioner represented to the Bank authorities for the grant of pension. His request was turn down on the ground of pension. His request was turn down on the ground that since he had retired much before the amended rules came into force, the benefit of such amended rules could not be allowed to him. 6. Hence the present writ petition seeking the writ order and/or directions detailed above. 7. At the very outset it may be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed and given up the relief (s) claimed against respondent No.1 as detailed at (i) and (ii) above, in view of the pronouncements by Division Benches of this Court in Subedar Rup Chand v. Union of India, CWP No. 1457 of 1996 decided on 27.11.1996, Bir Singh Rathore v. Union of India, CWP No. 957 of 1996 decided on 27.11.1996 and Ex-Subedar Rup Singh v. Union of India, CWP No. 642 of 1996 decided on 27.11.1996. 8. 8. In so far as the case of the petitioner for grant of pension against respondents No. 2 and 3 is concerned, the rules formulated by the Bank governing the pension are being assailed on the ground that the date prescribed for the enforcement thereof, that is, 1.11.1993 is not only arbitrary but also suffers from the vice of discrimination: According to the learned counsel for the petitioner though other nationalised Banks, such as, State Bank of Pariala, Punjab National Bank and UCO Bank have also, amended their respective rules and period of qualifying service for pension to 10 years and have made such amended rules/regulations applicable from 1.11.1993, the benefit of such amended rules/regulations have been also allowed to all such employees who were in service of the Banks on or after 1.11.1993. Therefore, there has been discrimination on the part of respondents No. 2 and 3 in not allowing similar benefits to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons who have retired from the service of State Bank of India. 9. It is not disputed that as per the rules/regulations prevailing at the time of the retirement of the petitioner, no one who had put in less than 20 years of qualifying service was entitled to pension. Such rules and regulations came to be amended and given effect to with effect from 1.11.1993. Under such amended rules/regulations formulated by the State Bank of India, under the amended rules/regulations qualifying service for pension was reduced from 20 years to 10 years and any employee retiring from service after 1.11.1993 after rendering minimum service of 10 years is .entitled to pension. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service of the Bank on 31.5.1990, that is, much before the coming into force of the amended rules/regulations. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is not entitled to any pension even under the amended rules/regulations. 10. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been discriminated by his employer, State Bank of India, by granting pension to the employees retiring from service prior to 1.11.1993. His case is that other Banks have allowed pensionary benefits also to persons retiring from service during the period 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1993 by making the amended rules/regulations applicable to them. 11. His case is that other Banks have allowed pensionary benefits also to persons retiring from service during the period 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1993 by making the amended rules/regulations applicable to them. 11. Even if other Banks have allowed pensionary benefits to the persons retiring prior to 1.11.1993, it cannot be said that petitioner has been discriminated against inasmuch as the petitioner was serving under an employer different from such Banks who had given the benefits. The petitioner would be governed by the rules and regulations formulated by his employer and under whom he was serving. He cannot claim the benefit being granted by other employers to their employees. 12. Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme court in D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, 1983 (2) SCR 165 whereby discrimination between pensioners forming a single class and governed by the same Rules was prohibited. 13. The ratio laid down in D.S. Nakara (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. No pension was granted to the petitioner because as per the Rules then in force on the date of his retirement, he was not entitled to pension since he was not having the requisite qualifying service of 20 years to his credit. The amended rules which were given effect to with effect from 1.11.1993 were not given retrospective effect so as to cover the cases of the persons retiring prior to 1.11.1993. The petitioner cannot be made retrospectively eligible for pension by virtue of these amended rules/regulations. The case sought to be made out by the petitioner for discrimination is not one whereby discrimination has been made amongst pensioners who are/were similarly situated inasmuch as the employees of other Banks and the employees of the State Bank of India are not governed by the same set of rules/regulations. They are governed by different sets of rules/regulations and as such form different classes of retirees. 14. In coming to the above conclusion, support is drawn from the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta and others v. Capt. Biplabendra Chanda, 1997(1) S.LR.22. 15. They are governed by different sets of rules/regulations and as such form different classes of retirees. 14. In coming to the above conclusion, support is drawn from the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta and others v. Capt. Biplabendra Chanda, 1997(1) S.LR.22. 15. Since the petitioner is not entitled to pension even under the amended rules/regulations and no case of discrimination is made out, the present petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. -