Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 478 (KER)

M. Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Kerala

2004-10-05

CYRIAC JOSEPH

body2004
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Trivandrum City Improvement Trust on 24.7.1961. While he was working as driver the, the employees of the Trivandrum City Improvement Trust were taken over by the Kerala State Housing Board when it was formed in 1971. While in the service of the Kerala State Housing Board, the petitioner got promotion as vehicle supervisor in 1980. While holding the post of vehicle supervisor, he retried from service on superannuation on 30.11.1987. 2. Under the provisions of the Kerala State Housing Board, 1971, the Kerala State Housing Board is competent to frame regulations regarding the service conditions of its employees with the previous approval of the Government. In the meeting held on 26.11.1983, the Kerala State Housing Board framed the Kerala State Housing Board Employees (Pension and other Retirement Benefits) Regulations and forwarded it to the Government for approval, when there was no response from the Government, the Kerala State Housing Board Employees Association submitted representation to the Government complaining about the delay in granting approval to the regulations. In response to the said representation dated 25.9.1987, the Honorable Minister for Housing sent Ext.P2 letter dated 23.10.1987 to the General Association informing him that the Government had already declared its decision to allow pension to the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board and that steps were being taken to implement the said decision. However, it was only on 27.5.1989 that the Government issued Ext.P3, G.O.(Ms). No.30/89/Hsg. Dated 27.5.1989 ordering that pension would be introduced to the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board with effect from the date of the said order. It was also ordered therein that Contributory Provident Fund of the employees would be discontinued and General Provident Fund of the employees would be discontinued and General Provident Fund would be made applicable to the employees of the Housing Board from the date of the said order. It was also ordered therein that Contributo0ry Provident Fund of the employees would be discontinued and General Provident fund would be made applicable to the employees of the Housing Board from the date of introduction of the Pension Scheme. It was also stated that the Rules/Regulations governing the payment of pensionary benefits would be issued separately. It was also ordered therein that Contributo0ry Provident Fund of the employees would be discontinued and General Provident fund would be made applicable to the employees of the Housing Board from the date of introduction of the Pension Scheme. It was also stated that the Rules/Regulations governing the payment of pensionary benefits would be issued separately. Ultimately, the service regulations in respect of pension and other retirement benefits of the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board were approved and confirmed by Government in G.O. (Ms). No.55/90/Hsg. Dated 27.12.1990 and the approved regulations were published as per Ext.P4. notification dated 27.12.1990. According to Regulations 1(2). The said regulations shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 27th May, 1989. It may be remembered that 25th May, 1989 is the date of Ext. P3 Government Order in which the government ordered that Pension Scheme would be introduced to the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board with effect from the date of the said order. It may also be noted that long before the introduction of the Pension Scheme for the employees of the Housing Board, the petitioner had retired from the service of the Housing Board on 30.11.1987. 3. The petitioner along with the General Secretar7y of the Kerala State Housing Board employees Association had filed O.P.No.99395 of 1987 complaining about the delay on the part of the government in granting approval to the Regulations framed by the Kerala state Housing Board. During the pendency of the said Original Petition, the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.1987. It was after the petitioner’s retirement from service that Ext.P3 order dated 27.5.1989 was issued by the Government ordering that pension would be introduced to the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board with effect from the date of the said order and that the Regulations were published as per Ext.P4 notification dated 27.12.1990. Hence, O.P.No.9935 of 1987 was amended for including the prayer for direction to extend the benefit of Ext.P4 Regulations to the petitioner also. The said original petition was disposed of by the High court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 27.6.1991. In Ext.P5 judgment, the Court held that there was clear injustice in the matter and that it was only proper to redress it as soon as possible. The said original petition was disposed of by the High court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 27.6.1991. In Ext.P5 judgment, the Court held that there was clear injustice in the matter and that it was only proper to redress it as soon as possible. The Court also expressed confidence that the government and the Kerala State Housing Board would consider the matter in the right spirit and the petitioner would be given benefits under the Pension Payment Regulations, 1983 and would redress his grievance. The Court directed the Government to take a decision in the matter as early as possible and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner was given liberty to approach the court again if his grievances were not remedied at the hands of the Government and the Housing Board. 4. In the light of Ext.P5 judgment, the Government considered the request for granting pension to the employees of Kerala State Housing Board who retired prior to 27.5.1989 and decided to reject the request. The said decision was communicated too the petitioner as per Ext.P6 letter dated 15.2.1992. Challenging Ext.P6, petitioner filed O.P). No.6865 of 1992. During the pendency of the said original petition, government issued Ext.P7 order dated 28.11.1995 extending the benefit of pension of compassionate grounds to the eight persons who had retired from the Housing Board’s service before the date of introduction of Pension Scheme in Kerala State Housing Board, i.e. 27.5.1989 and who were still alive, without retrospective effect and without any back arrears. Based on Ext.P7 Government Order dated 28.11.1995, the second respondent Kerala State Housing Board issued Ext.P8 order dated 3.2.1996 sanctioning pension to the petitioner and four other employees who had retired from service before 27.5.1995 (Ext.P7 in this O.P.) and held that the stand of the government communicated through Government Letter NO.4047/A1/91/Hsg. Dated 15.2.1992 (Ext. P6 in this O.P.) was no longer available to the Movement in view of the Government Order dated 28.11.1995 and that the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits with effect from the date of introduction of the Pension Scheme deserved a fresh look. Dated 15.2.1992 (Ext. P6 in this O.P.) was no longer available to the Movement in view of the Government Order dated 28.11.1995 and that the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits with effect from the date of introduction of the Pension Scheme deserved a fresh look. Hence the government Letter dated 15.2.1992 in so far as it concerned the petitioner was quashed and the Government was directed to pass fresh orders on the representation dated 1.76.1991 filed by the petitioner before the Honourable Minister for Housing. In compliance with the directions inExt.P9 judgment, the matter was again considered by the Government and Ext.P10, G.O. (Rt) No.57/96/Hsg. Dated 24.8.1996, was issued rejecting the petition of the petitioner wand refusing the request for grant of pension to the petitioner with retrospective effect from the date of introduction of the Pension Scheme. INExt.P10 order, Government pointed out that although the eight persons including the petitioner were not eligible for pension according to the Scheme, Government took a lenient view and sanctioned pension to them also. It was also stated that even though the petitioner had retired prior to the issuance of the Government Orders sanctioning pension, his request was sympathetically considered and pension was granted to him as a special case and not as a matter of right. 5. Aggrieved by Ext.p10, petitioner filed this Original Petition praying to quash Ext.P10 and to direct the respondents to give arrears of pension to the petitioner from 27.5.1989 to 27.11.1995 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. There is also a prayer for declaring that the petitioner is entitled too get pension from 27.5.1989., the date of coming into force of Ext.P4 Regulations. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, State of Kerala, justifying the stand taken in Ext.P10 order. It is stated in the counter affidavit that Ext.P4 was not given any retrospectivity and hence the petitioner who had retired prior to the coming into force of the Pension scheme was not entitled for pension. The petitioner’s request for pension was rejected as per Ext.P6 Government Letter dated 15.6.1992. It is stated in the counter affidavit that Ext.P4 was not given any retrospectivity and hence the petitioner who had retired prior to the coming into force of the Pension scheme was not entitled for pension. The petitioner’s request for pension was rejected as per Ext.P6 Government Letter dated 15.6.1992. Subsequently, the government considered the question of granting pension to the employees who had retired from service of the second respondent prior to the introduction of the Pension Scheme and the benefit of pension was extended to the petitioner and seven others as per Ext.P7 order dated 28.11.1995. It is also stated that it is evident from Ext.P7 that the benefit of pension was extended to the petitioner and seven others on compassionate grounds and that it was sanctioned without retrospective effect and without any back arrears. It is further stated that in spite of the non-existence of any legal obligation to give pensionary benefits to those who retired prior to o27.5.1989, the government extended the benefit of pension to them only on com passionate grounds. 7. The second respondent has not filed any counter affidavit. The petitioner has not filed any reply to the counter affidavit of the first respondent. 8. I have heard Mr. P.N. Santhosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Renu, learned Government Pleader and Mr. T.R. Harikumar learned counsel for the second re4spondent. 9. In the light of admitted facts, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim, as a matter of right, pension from 27.5.1989, the date on which the Pension Scheme was brought into force. Admittedly, petitioner had retired from the service of the second respondent on superannuation on 30.11.1987. At the time of his retirement, there was no Pension Scheme in force for the employees of the second respondent and the employees of the second respondent were covered by the Contributory Provident fund Scheme. Hence, at the time of his retirement, the petitioner was not entitled to any pension and was entitle only to the benefit under the contributory Provident Fund Scheme. As per Ext.P3 Government Order dated 27.5.1989, the Government ordered that Pension Scheme will be introduced to the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board with effect from the date of the said Government Order, i.e. 27.5.1989. As per Ext.P3 Government Order dated 27.5.1989, the Government ordered that Pension Scheme will be introduced to the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board with effect from the date of the said Government Order, i.e. 27.5.1989. In Ext.P4 notification dated 27.12.1990, it was specifically stated that the Regulations should be deemed to have come into force with effect from 27.5.1989. Thus, Exts.P3 and P4 specifically stated that the Pension Scheme was introduced only with effect from 27.5.1989. Consequently, employees like the petitioner who retired prior to 27.5.1989 were not entitled to the benefit under the Pension Scheme introduced as per Exts.P3 and P4. Therefore, the petitioner cannot as a matter of right demand pension from 27.5.1989. 10. It is true that the benefit of pension under Exts. P3 and P4 was extended to the petitioner as per Ext.P7 Government Order dated 28.11.1995. However, it was specifically stated in the said Government Order that the benefit of pension was extended to the petitioner and seven other persons on compassionate grounds. In other words, as pointed out in the counter affidavit of the first respondent, though the employees who had retired from the4 service of the Housing Board (second respondent) prior to 27.5.1989 were not entitled to get pension under the Pension Scheme as per Exts. P3 and P4, a lenient view was taken by the government on compassionate grounds and benefit of pension was extended to them, but “without retrospective effect and without any back arrears”. Through Ext.P7 Government letter dated 28.11.195 a concession was extended to the petitioner subject to certain conditions and, hence, the petitioner has not legal right to claim the concession without the conditions attached to it. In other words, unless the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pension under Exts.P3 and P4 with effect from 27.5.129889, he cannot as a matter of right claim pension during the period from 27.51989 was not legally entitled too the benefit under Exts.P3 and P4, he is not entitled as a matter of right too claim pension during the period from 27.51989 to o27.11.1995. He can claim pension from 28.11.1995 in view of the concession granted by the Government as per Ext.P7 order dated 28.11.1995. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the observations made by the court in Exts.P5 and P9 judgments. However, in Exts. He can claim pension from 28.11.1995 in view of the concession granted by the Government as per Ext.P7 order dated 28.11.1995. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the observations made by the court in Exts.P5 and P9 judgments. However, in Exts. P5 and P9 judgments, there is o finding or declaration of the petitioner’s right to get pension under Exts.P3 and P4 from 27.5.1989 and there is no direction to the respondents to grant the said right tot the petitioner. The government was only directed too consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations in the judgment. Hence, Exts. P5 and P9 judgments did not confer any right on the petitioner to claim pension from 27.5.1989. The said judgments did not create any obligation on the Government to grant the benefit of pension to the petitioner from 27.5.1989. It was open to the Government to consider the matter afresh and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Hence the legality and correctness of Ext.P120 order have to be considered on its own merits. On an independent consideration of the merits of Ext.P10 Government Order, I have already found that the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim pension during the period from 27.5.1989 to 27.11.1995. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the Pension Scheme was introduced only with effect from 27.5.1989 as per Exts.P3 and P4,. The second respondent, Kerala State Housing Board had framed the Kerala State Housing Board (Opinion and other Retirement Benefits) Regulations in its meeting held on 26.11.1987, the Honourable Minister for Housing had stated that Government had declared its decision to grant pension to the employees of the Housing Board and that steps were being taken to implement the decision. The petitioner retired only on 30.11.1987. Hence, it is contended that the delay in issuing formal orders by the Government granting approval to the Regulations and introducing the Pension Scheme should not prejudice the right of the petition to get pension. However it is to be noted that independent of Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner and the other employees of the Housing Board hd no right to get pension and they had only the right to get the benefit under the contiiributory Provident fund Scheme. However it is to be noted that independent of Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner and the other employees of the Housing Board hd no right to get pension and they had only the right to get the benefit under the contiiributory Provident fund Scheme. Hence, no edisting right of the petitioner was prejudicaed by the delay on the part of the Government in granting approval to the Regulations framed by the second respondent and in issuing Exts.P3 Government Order. The decision of the Kerala State Housing Board in its meeting held on 26.11.1983 to frame the Kerala State housing Board Employees (Pension and other Retirement Benefits) Regulations did not create any right or confer any right on the employees of the Housing Board to get pension. The right to get pension was created and conferred with effect from 27.5.1989 and Ext.P4 notification dated 27.12.1990. Before that he petitioner had retired from service. Hence, there is no merit in the contention that the delay in issuing Exts. P3 and P4 caused prejudice to the right of the petitioner to get pension. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of Ext.P2 letter dated 23.10.1987 of the Honourable Minister for Housing, it should be held that the pension scheme for the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board had been introduced prior to 23.10.1987 and that the petitioner who retired from service only on 30.1.1987 should be given pension at least from 27.5.1989. There is no merit in this contention. A letter like Ext.P2 cannot confer any right on the employees of the second respondent. The service conditions of the employees of the second respondent are governed by the Regulations framed by the second respondent with the prior approval of the government in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala State Housing Board Act, 1971. the service regulations providing for pension to the employees of the Housing Board were issued only as per Ext.P4 notification dated 27.12.1990. As seen from Ext.P4 notification, the Regulations were proved and confirmed by the Government only as per G.O. (Ms) NO.55/90/Hsg. Dated 27.12.1990. the service regulations providing for pension to the employees of the Housing Board were issued only as per Ext.P4 notification dated 27.12.1990. As seen from Ext.P4 notification, the Regulations were proved and confirmed by the Government only as per G.O. (Ms) NO.55/90/Hsg. Dated 27.12.1990. Since the Government had issued Ext.P3 Order dated 27.5.1989 ordering that Pension Scheme would be introduced to the employees of the Kerala State Housing Board with effect from the date of the said order, it was provided in Regulation 1(2) that the Regulations shall be deemed to have come into force a with effect from 27.5.1989. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the Pension scheme had been introduced prior to the retirement of the petitioner and that he should be paid pension at least from 27.5.1989. 14. Placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable supreme court in D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India. AIR 1983 SC 130, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the classification of the employees of the second respondent for the purpose of granting pension as those who retired prior to 27.5.1989 and those who retired on or after 27.5.1989 is arbitrary and illegal. There is no merit in this contention also. In D.S. Nakara’s case, the question for consideration before the court was whether on the basis of date of retirement the retirees can be classified into different groups and thereupon make provisions granting some pension to one group denying the others. In the said case, the provisions for pension were applicable to all retirees and therefore, pensioners formed a class as a whole. But, when Liberalised Pension Scheme was introduced, the said scheme was made applicable to a group of pensioners and not to all and therefore, it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that pensioners formed a class as a whole and could not be micro-classified by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable eligibil8ty criterion. But, when Liberalised Pension Scheme was introduced, the said scheme was made applicable to a group of pensioners and not to all and therefore, it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that pensioners formed a class as a whole and could not be micro-classified by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable eligibil8ty criterion. The decision in D.S. Nakara’s case was considered by a Constitution Bench of the supreme Court in Kri9shena Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1782, wherein the decision in D.S. Nakara’s case was explained and it was held that pension retirees and the Provident fund retirees did not form one homogeneous clasws and on the other hand, the Rules governing the Provident fund and its contribution were entirely different from the rules governing pension and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue that what was applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to the provident fund retirees. It was further held that the rights of each individual retiree finally crystallized on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained in the case of those who were governed by provident fund rules,, whereas, in the case of pension retirees the obligation continued till the death of the employee. In Union of India v. P.N. Menon, AIR 1994 SC 2221, similar question came up for consideration and distinguishing the decision in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra) and following the decision in Krishena Kumar (supra) and similar other cases, the Honourable supreme Court held that whenever the Government or an authority which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India, frames a scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefit to one and all irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such, it was held that 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. It was further held that 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. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association v. Union of India. It was further held that 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. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association v. Union of India. AIR 1992 SC 767, when the validity of the introduction of the pension scheme in lieu of contributory provident fund scheme was challenged on the ground that the bank employees who retired prior to 1.1.1986 were not given the benefit of the said scheme, it was held by the Honourable supreme court that there was no arbitrariness in the matter. Hence, the contention of the petitioner based on the decision in D.S. Nakara’s case cannot be upheld. The employees who retired prior to 27.5.1989 did not form one homogenous class as the former were governed by the contributory Provident Fund scheme and the latter were governed by the Pension scheme introduced as per Exts. P3 and P4. The Rules governing Contributory Provident fund Scheme are entirely different from the Rules governing Pension. Therefore, it is not reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the pension retirees must equally apply to the provident fund retirees. The right of the petitioner finally crystallized on his retirement, Whereafter after no continuing obligation remained in the case of the petitioner who was governed by the Contributory Provident Fund scheme. It is also to be noted that the Pension scheme for the employees of the second respondent was introduced as per Exts. P3 and P4 only with effect from 27.5.1989. when a new Pension Scheme is introduced, owing to many constraints it may not bee possible for the respondents to extend the benefit tone and all irrespective of the dates of superannuation. In such a case, the scheme has necessarily to be implemented with a cut off date. So long as the said cut off date is reasonable and rational, it need not be held to be invalid. In this case, the cut off date is 27.5.1989 which s the date on which the government issued Ext.P3 ordering that Pension Scheme will be introduced to the employees of the Kerala state housing Board with effect from the date of the said order. The said cut off date cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational or arbitrary. In this case, the cut off date is 27.5.1989 which s the date on which the government issued Ext.P3 ordering that Pension Scheme will be introduced to the employees of the Kerala state housing Board with effect from the date of the said order. The said cut off date cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational or arbitrary. Hence the contention of the petitioner based on the decision in D.S. Nakara’s case is devoid of merit. 14. In Tamilnadu Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and others, AIR 1999 SC 1768, the appellant Tamilnadu electricity Boar was brought into existence on 01.7.1957. The employees of the Electricity Department of the Government of Tamilnadu were transferred to the appellant Board on and from 1.7.1957 and the erstwhile employees of the government became the employees of the Board. The employees (respondents in the case) were workmen in regular work charge establishment and were governed by contributory Provident fund scheme on the date when they were transferred from Electricity Department of Tamilnadu to the appellant Board. On their retirement prior to 01.7.1986, they were governed by the contributory Provident fund scheme and they had received all retrial benefits in full settlement. The Government of Tamilnadu had issued G.P.(Ms) No.797 dated 30.6.1989 introducing the pension scheme to its employees who were not governed earlier by such pension scheme. However, the appellant Board had not adopted the said government Order. Though the employees were making representations to the Board from time to time to extend the benefit of pension scheme to those who wee hitherto governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, the appellant Board could introduce the Pension Scheme only with effect from 1.7.1986. The employees who retired prior to 1.7.1986 moved the High court to quash that part of the Board’s proceedings which fixed the date of the application of the proceedings as 1.7.1986. A learned single Judge of the High Court found that the date fixed as 1.7.1986 was neither arbitrary nor offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. The employees filed appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge. A learned single Judge of the High Court found that the date fixed as 1.7.1986 was neither arbitrary nor offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. The employees filed appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge. Though the learned Judges of the Division Bench accepted the contention of the Board that the ratio laid down in D.S. Nakara’s case may not apply to the facts of the case, they held that the employees were entitled to the benefit of the Pension Scheme. Such a view was taken by the Division Bench mainly on the ground that it was because of the delay. On the part of the electricity Board in bringing into existence the Pension Scheme, that the erstwhile employees were deprived of the benefit of the Pension Scheme. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. While allowing the appeal, the Honourable supreme ‘court held that the Division Bench of the Madras High court erroneously granted the relief on the alleged delay on the part of the appellant Electricity Board in introducing the Pension Scheme which certainly cannot be a ground for the court to give retrospective effect to the Pension Scheme. The Supreme court also held that the retired employees who had retired from service before 1.7.1986 and those who were in employment on o the said date could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class. According to the supreme court, the workmen who had retired after receiving all the benefits available under the Contributory Provident fund Scheme ceased to be employees of the appellant Board with effect from the date of their retirement and they formed a separate class. The Supreme Court further held that the appellant Board had not acted illegally or contrary to law in introducing the pension scheme prospectively from 1.7.1986 and that the employees retired before 1.7.1986 could not compel the appellant Board to extend the newly introduced Pension Scheme with retrospective effect. In my view, the ration of the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and hence the claim of o petitioner is liable to be rejected. 15. In Commander, Head Quarter, Calcutta v. Capt. Biplebendra Chanda, (1997) 1 SCC 208, the respondent was commissioned Officer who retired from service on 18.5.1982. In my view, the ration of the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and hence the claim of o petitioner is liable to be rejected. 15. In Commander, Head Quarter, Calcutta v. Capt. Biplebendra Chanda, (1997) 1 SCC 208, the respondent was commissioned Officer who retired from service on 18.5.1982. According to the rules then in force, only 2/3rd of the pre-commissioned service were allowed to be counted towards qualifying service for earning pensionary benefits. A minimum period of qualifying service was also provided for becoming eligible for pension. On the basis of the said rules, the respondent was found ineligible for grant of pension and accordingly no pension was granted to him. About four years later, the rules relating to qualifying service was changed with effect from 1.1.1986 based on the recommendations of the fourth Pay Commission. One of the features of the new rules was that full pre-commissioned service was to be taken into account for working out the qualifying service required for earning pensionary benefits. In other words, whereas previously only 2/3rd of the pre-commissioned service could be taken into account as per the new rules which came into force with effect from 1.1.1986. The respondent laid a claim for grant of pension on the basis of the said new rules but it was denied. Thereupon he approached the High court by way of a writ petition. The leaned Single Judge allowed the w5rit petition relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra). The decision of the learned single Judge was confirmed by a Division Bench Hence the appellants filed the appeal before the Supreme Court. The supreme Court held that the ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara’s case had no application in the case. The Supreme Court pointed out that pension was not granted too the resp9ondent because he was not eligible as specified both prospectively as well as retrospectively. The only question is whether the prescription of the date is unreasonable or discriminatory. In the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 16. In V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State bank of India, Bombay and another. The only question is whether the prescription of the date is unreasonable or discriminatory. In the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 16. In V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State bank of India, Bombay and another. AIR 1999 SC 81 at paragraph w22, the Supreme Court held as follows: “However, if an employee at the time of his retirement is not eligible for earning pension and stands outside the class of pensioners, if subsequently by amendment of relevant pension Rules any beneficial umbrella of pension scheme is extended to cover a new class of pensioners and when such a subsequent scheme comes into force the erstwhile non-pensioners is expressly made retrospective by the authorities promulgating such scheme, the erstwhile non-pensioner who has retired prior to the advent of such extended pension scheme can claim benefit of such a new extended pension scheme. If such new scheme is prospective only, old retirees non-pensioners cannot get the benefit of such a scheme even if they survive such new scheme. They will remain outside its sweep”. 17. InHari Ram Gupta, (D) Thro. L.R. Kasturi Devi v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 2483, Hari Ram Guppta, the husband of the appellant had retired from service on superannuation in the year 1980. He filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus from the Court to the appropriate authorities to give him the benefits of the U.P. Palika (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefit rules, 1981. He ppepr the rules in force on the date of his retirement and the new rules which came into force from 1.1.1986 were not given retrospective effect. According to the Supreme Court, the respondent could not be made retrospectively eligible for pension by virtue of the new rules. The Supreme Court also held that it was not a case where discrimination was made among pensioners who were similarly situated. Quoting from the decision in State of West Bengal v. Ratan Behari Dev, (1993) 4 SCC 62, the Supreme Court pointed out that it is open to the State or to the corporation as the case may be, to change the conditions of service unilaterally. Terminal benefits as well as pensionary benefits constitute conditions of service. The employer has the undoubted power too revise the salaries and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary benefits. Terminal benefits as well as pensionary benefits constitute conditions of service. The employer has the undoubted power too revise the salaries and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary benefits. The power to specify a date from which the revision of pay scales or terminal benefits/pensionary benefits, s the case may be, shall take effect is a concomitant of the said power. So long as such date is specified in a reasonable manner, i.e. without bringing about a discrimination between similarly situated persons, no interference is called for by the court in that behalf. The power of the State to specify a date with effect from which the Regulations framed, or amended, as the case may be, shall come into force is unquestioned. A date can be contended that he would be entitled to pension under the rules as the rules were intended to apply retrospectively and at any rate, following the principle of the judgment of the supreme Court in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra), the Court should grant him the relief. The High Court held that the rules had no retrospective operat8ion and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to claim pension under the rules. Soon after the judgment of the Allahabad High court, Hari Ram Gupta died and the widow, L.R. Kasathuri Devi filed appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. It was not disputed that before the rules came into operation, there was no rules providing pension for employees of the centralized services. After examining the rules, the Supreme Court found that there was no express provision I the rules giving retrospective operation. The Supreme Court also held that it was not possible to infer from any of the provisions contained in the rules that the rules had been given retrospective operation. Then the court considered the question whether the ratio in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra), would assist the appellant in getting the relief sought for. Rejecting the claim of the appellant, the Supreme Court held as follows: “9. The only other question that survives for our consideration is whether the ratio in Nakara’s case will assist the appellant in getting the relief sought for? Rejecting the claim of the appellant, the Supreme Court held as follows: “9. The only other question that survives for our consideration is whether the ratio in Nakara’s case will assist the appellant in getting the relief sought for? In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (supra) the question for consideration before this Court was whether on the basis of date of oretirement the retirees can be classified into different groups and thereupon make provision grantingsome benefits to one group denying the others? In the aforesaid case, the provisions for pension was applicable to all retirees and, therefore, pensioners form a class as a whole. But when Liberalised Pension Scheme was introduced the said Scheme was made applicable to a group of pensioners and not to all and therefore, it was held be this Court that pensioners form, a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criteria. It is to be noted that the aforesaid judgment was considered by this Court in the subsequent constitution Bench judgment of Krishna Kumar v. Union of India (199o) 4 SCC 207: (AIR 1990 SC 1782) wherein the decision of Nakara (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra) was explained and it was held that the pension retirees and provident fund retirees do not form one homogeneous class and on the other hand the Rules governing the provident fund retirees do ot form one homogeneous class and on the other hand the rules governing the provident fund and its contribution are entirely different from the Rules governing pension and therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to Provident fund retirees. It was further held in the aforesaid case that the rights of each individual retiree finally crystallized on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained in case of those who are governed by Provident fund Rules whereas in case of Pension retirees the obligation continues till the death of the employee. This Court categorically held that Nakara (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra) cannot be an authority for the decision in Krishna Kumar (supra). In Union of India v. P.N. Menon. This Court categorically held that Nakara (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra) cannot be an authority for the decision in Krishna Kumar (supra). In Union of India v. P.N. Menon. (1994) 4 SCC 68: (1994 AIR SCW 1985) a similar question came up for consideration and distinguishing Nakara and following Krishna Kumar and other similar cases, the Court held that whenever the Government or an authority, which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, frames a scheme 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 Arti9cle 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. When the Army personnel claimed the same pension irrespective of their date of retirement this Court in the constitution Bench case of the Indian Ex-services League v. Union of India. (1991) 2 SCC 104: (1991 AIR SCW 327), considered the grievance of ex-servicemen who had laid the claim on the basis of Nakara (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra) but ultimately negatived the same and followed Krishna Kumar (AIR 1990 SC 1782) (supra). In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India. (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 664.: (1992 AAIR SCW 460), when the validity of the introduction of Pensions Scheme in lieu of contributory Provident Fund Scheme was challenge 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 this court that there is no arbitrariness in the same. 10. 10. This being the position, the appellant having superannuated prior to the Rule coming into force cannot claim the right to pension under the rules with the help of the decision of this “court in Nakara (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra) and further in view of our conclusion that the Rules do not have any retrospective operation the relief sought for by the appellant to get pension under the Rules cannot be granted”. 18. In Union of India and others v. Lieut (Mrs) E. IACATS. (1997) 7 SCC 334, the respondent who was a nursing sister in the military nursing service retired from service on superannuation with effect from 30.11.1981. She claimed pensionary benefits which were conferred for the first time on all those who retired after 01.10.1983. Although she had not challenged the cut off date as arbitrary, she placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara’s case 9supra). After considering the decision in D.S. Nakara’s case and the subsequent decisions explaining the ratio of the said decision, the Supreme Court held that the respondent could not claim the benefit of the scheme which came into operation from a date subsequent to the date of her retirement. 19. In Union of India and others v. Dr. Vijayapurapu subbayamma (AIR 2000 SC 3113) the respondent Dr. Subbayamma was appointed as a Lady Medical Officer in the Family Welfare Centre, Vishakhapatnam on 22.9.1968. Subsequently she was made quasi-permanent with effect from 31.3.1972. She retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 13.11.1980. At the time of her retirement she had not completed the requisite qualifying service of 20 years for entitlement of pension. Hence she was informed that she was not entitled to any pension. Subsequently the Fourth Pay commission made recommendation that for entitlement of pro rata pension the length of service be reduced from 20 years to o10 years,. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government of India and came into force with effect from 1.1.1986. Then Dr. Subbayamma made a are presentation that since the length of service for entitlement to pension had been reduced from 20years to 10 years and since she had put in a service of 12 years 2 months and 9 days she was entitled to pro rata pension with effect from 1.1.1986. Then Dr. Subbayamma made a are presentation that since the length of service for entitlement to pension had been reduced from 20years to 10 years and since she had put in a service of 12 years 2 months and 9 days she was entitled to pro rata pension with effect from 1.1.1986. The representation of the respondent was considered and it was found that when the respondent retired the requirement for entitlement of pension was 20 years of service and that since she had retired prior to 1.1.1986 she was not entitled to pension. Though the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad upheld the claim of Dr. Subbayamma for pro rata pension wit effect from 1.1.1986 the Union of India filed appeal before the supreme Court and the Supreme court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. After referring too earlier decisions of the Court the Honourable Supreme Court stated the legal position as follows: “7. The conspectus of legal position that emerges from the aforesaid decisions are these: (a) Where an employee under the terms and conditions of service or under the relevant rules relating to pension is not eligible to earn pension on his or her retirement, any amendment to the rules covering a new class of pensioner would not confer pensionary benefits to the employee who has retired prior to coming into force of such amendment of Rules. (b) However, the position would be different if such an amendment in the relevant pension rules, is with retrospective effect as to cover a new class of employee including those employees who, at the relevant time, were not entitled to earn pension under the then existing rules or conditions of service. (c) Where an employee at the time of retirement is entitled too pension under the relevant rules, any subsequent amendment to the relevant rules enhancing pension r conferring additional benefit would be also applicable to him.” 20. In the light of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases there is no merit in this writ petition and hence the Original Petition is dismissed.