Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This special appeal has been registered on remand from the Supreme Court. The appellant had filed SLP (Civil) No. 1410 of 2003 giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 8553 of 2003 challenging the Judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 06.09.2002 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4808 of 1994. Leave was granted on 310.2003 but when the matter came up for hearing on 010.2005 the Supreme Court passed the following order:- "It is brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the respondents that a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench is available and a specific stand in that regard has been taken by Respondent No. 1. Since factual adjudication, more particularly of the question as to whether Respondent No. 1 actually worked after 31.07.1985 or had availed leave preparatory to retirement would require detailed examination, we think it would be appropriate if the appeal filed in this Court which has been registered after grant of leave as a civil appeal be transmitted to the High Court to be treated as Letters Patent Appeal (Special Appeal). Since the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal in according with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of our order". 2. Accordingly, on receipt of the order and the records form the Supreme Court this appeal was registered on 16.01.2006. 3. Respondent No. 1 Ram Narain Upadhayaya (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) has filed the writ petition seeking direction on the appellant to allow him the benefit of pension under the National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development Pension Regulations, 1993 from 01.01.1986 after adjusting the provident fund amount paid to him. He also sought a declaration that the exclusion clause to wit, "excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement" occurring in Regulation 3(3) of the Regulations as unconstitutional in case it is found that the benefit of pension can not be allowed in view of the exclusion clause. The learned Single Judge under the Judgment impugned held that the clause excluding employees who had on leave preparatory retirement as on 01.01.1986 from the benefits of Pension Regulations was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge under the Judgment impugned held that the clause excluding employees who had on leave preparatory retirement as on 01.01.1986 from the benefits of Pension Regulations was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Holding further, that the respondent was in service upto 31.01.1986, the learned Judge directed the appellant to extend the benefit of pension scheme to him after adjusting the amount of provident fund paid to him with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 01.01.1986 when the pension became due to him. 4. Before referring to the relevant provisions and the point in dispute it may be mentioned that the respondent was originally in the service of the Reserve Bank of India. After establishment of the National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) under the National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (in short the Act), he joined the service of NABARD and became its employee on exercising option in terms of proviso to Sub-section (6) of Section 50 of the Act with effect from 12.07.1982. On 112.1982, the NABARD i.e. appellant herein framed staff rules called National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff ) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Rules). These staff Rules are applicable to all the employees of the NABARD appointed on or after 12.07.1982 or deemed to have been appointed under different Sub-sections of Section 50 of the Act. Rule 19 of the Staff Rules provides for superannuation and retirement of employees in Groups A, B, or C at the age of 58 years (now 60 years). In terms of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 19, notwithstanding the provisions regarding superannuation/retirement, where an employee has earned ordinary leave, but not availed of the same, as on the date of retirement, he may avail such leave subject to maximum of six months (now ten months). In that case, he will be deemed to have finally retired from service on the expiry of leave. in the alternative, he has the option to be paid lump sum amount equivalent to pay as on the date of retirement plus other allowances for the unavailed ordinary leave period subject to maximum of six months (now ten months). In that case, he will be deemed to have finally retired from service on the expiry of leave. in the alternative, he has the option to be paid lump sum amount equivalent to pay as on the date of retirement plus other allowances for the unavailed ordinary leave period subject to maximum of six months (now ten months). The respondent who was a Group A employee completed 58 years of age on 16.07.1985 and in view of proviso to Rule 19(1) he was treated as retired on the last day of the month i.e. 31.07.1985. However, he was permitted to avail six months ordinary leave standing to his credit as on the date of his retirement in terms of Clause (a) of Rule 19(4) of the Staff Rules. On retirement his accounts were thus settled and he was paid his retrial dues including CPF dues as per the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme which was then in vogue in respect of the employees of the appellant Bank. 5. In 1993 the appellant with the approval of the Central Government introduced a pension scheme in place of the existing CPF scheme called National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development Pension Regulations, 1993(referred to as the Pension Regulations) with effect from 011.1993. These regulations were framed on the patterns of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990. Like the RBI Pension Regulations, choice was given to employees of the appellant Bank in service on 01.01.1986 under Regulation 3(3) to opt for pension within the period specified on refunding the Banks contribution to the Provident Fund with interest. The choice or option however was not available to those who were "on the leave preparatory to retirement". The actual date of retirement of the respondent being 31.07.1985 he was treated to be not in service as on 01.01.1986 and, therefore, not allowed the option to switch over to the pension scheme in terms of Regulation 3(3) of the Pension Regulations. In the circumstances he approached this Court seeking directions to extend him the benefit of Pension and in case it is held that he can not claim pension in view of the clause "excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement", the same may be struck down as mentioned at the outset. 6. In the circumstances he approached this Court seeking directions to extend him the benefit of Pension and in case it is held that he can not claim pension in view of the clause "excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement", the same may be struck down as mentioned at the outset. 6. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether exclusion of those on leave preparatory to retirement on 01.01.1986 is arbitrary, and discriminatory. The allied question is whether those on leave preparatory to retirement on 01.01.1986 are to be treated in service so as to become entitled to the benefit of pension in terms of Regulation 3(3) of the Pensions Regulations. 7. We have referred to above the relevant feature of the pension scheme but in order to correctly appreciate the point and answer the questions it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions. But before referring to the provisions of the Pension Regulations, Rule 19 of the Staff Rules so far relevant for the purpose of this case may be noticed. Rule 19 deals with superannuation and retirement of the employees of the appellant Bank. It lays down- 1. Superannuation and Retirement.-(1) An employee in Group A or Group B or Group C shall retire at 58 years of age; provided that an employee who attains the age of superannuation on a day other than the first during a calendar month shall retire on the last day of that month; Provided further . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, where an employee has ordinary leave earned but not availed of as on the date of retirement, he may, at this option .(a) be permitted to avail of leave subject to maximum of six months in respect of ordinary leave earned under these Rules and in that case the employee will be deemed to have finally retired from the service on the expiry of the leave; or .(b) be paid a lumpsum amount which shall be equivalent to pay as defined in Rule 3(j) of these Rules as on the date of his retirement for the unavailed ordinary leave earned subject to maximum of six months plus all allowance normally admissible to the employee concerned during ordinary leave. Explanation.-"Date of retirement" means the date on which the employee attains the age of superannuation in accordance with the provisions of this Rule or the date on which he is retired from the National Bank under Sub-rule (1) of this Rule, or the date on which the employee voluntarily retires in terms of Sub-rule (3) or Sub-rule (3-A) of this Rule, as the case may be". The relevant provisions of the Pension Regulations may now be noticed at one place as under 2. Definitions.-In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(6) Date of Retirement means the date on which an employee attains the age of superannuation or he is retired by the National Bank or the date on which the employee voluntarily retires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(10) Subject to other conditions contained in these Regulations, qualifying service means service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension under these Regulations. .(11) Retirement means retirement in terms of Staff Rule 19 and other instructions issued by the National Bank under Settlements/Awards. 3. Application.-These Regulations shall apply to :- .(1) Employees who join the National Banks service on or after 011.1993. .(2) Employees who are in the service of the National Bank as on 310.1993, except those employees who, within the period prescribed by the National Bank exercise an option in writing not to be governed by these Regulations. .(3) Employees who were in service as on 01.01.1986 (excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement) and had retired before 011.1993, provided they exercise option to be governed by these Regulations and refund, within such period as may be specified, the National Banks contribution to Provident Fund including interest received by them from the National Bank together with simple interest at six percent per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of repayment. Pension shall be payable to them in accordance with Regulation 31. 22. Leave Preparatory to retirement.-Leave preparatory to retirement shall not count as qualifying service and pension shall not be payable during leave preparatory to retirement. Pension shall be payable to them in accordance with Regulation 31. 22. Leave Preparatory to retirement.-Leave preparatory to retirement shall not count as qualifying service and pension shall not be payable during leave preparatory to retirement. Employees will have the choice as under : .(a) either to encash the entire period of accumulated leave preparatory to retirement and draw pension from the first of the month following the date of superannuation itself (as leave preparatory to retirement commences from the beginning of that month); or .(b) to avail to leave preparatory to retirement for completed months and encash the broken period of leave preparatory to retirement of less than a month so as to draw pension from the first of the succeeding month. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. Superannuation pension.-Superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of superannuation. Provided that pension shall not be payable during leave preparatory to retirement. 25. Premature retirement pension.-(1) . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(2) . . . .. . . . . . . . .(3) . . . .. . . . . . . . .(4) No pension shall be payable during leave preparatory to retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. Payment of pension to employees who retired on or after 01.01.1986 but before 011.1993. -Employees who have retired from the National Banks service on or after 011.1992 shall be eligible for pension from 011.1993, or after expiry of leave preparatory to retirement subject to Regulation 22, the payment of pension shall be subject to their refunding National Banks contribution to Provident Fund including interest received by them from the National Bank, together with simple interest received by them from the National Bank, together with simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of repayment. Such employees will be permitted to commute their pension with effect from 011.1993, after due medical examination. . . . ." 8. Such employees will be permitted to commute their pension with effect from 011.1993, after due medical examination. . . . ." 8. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that though the date of superannuation of an employee in the Banks service at the relevant time was the date when he attained the age of 58 years, under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 19 the employee is deemed to have retired from service on expiry of the period of leave if he opts to avail of the leave in terms of Clause (a) of Sub-rule (4), and as the respondent had exercised the option to avail of six months leave which was due to him on the date of his retirement, he cannot be said to have retired from service on 31.07.1985. It was submitted that the respondent remained in service for six additional months i.e. upto 31.01.1986 for all intents and purposes, he continued to be governed by Disciplinary Rules etc. during such period, and, therefore, he cannot be said to have retired on 31.07.1985. It was submitted that the pension scheme was framed to replace the erstwhile CPF scheme so as to provide better retrial benefit to the employees of the appellant Bank and there can not be any classification inter se between the CPF retires who retired prior to 01.01.1986 and afterwards. 9. This first and foremost aspect of the case is that the age of retirement of employees in Groups A, B or C at the relevant time was 58 years and thus the due date of retirement of the respondent was 31.07.1985 by virtue of proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 19. Sub-rule (4) starting with a non obstinate clause no doubt envisages a "deemed" retirement effective from the date of expiry of leave in cases where the employee has unutilized earned ordinary leave to his credit as on the date of retirement and he opts to avail of the leave (subject to maximum of six months). In other words, in view of Rule 19(4)(a), by a legal fiction-"deemed to have finally retired" the employee is treated to be in service till expiry of the leave. It is well known that legal fiction is created to provide for something which is not real. In such cases the Court is required to assume something as real which in fact does not exist. It is well known that legal fiction is created to provide for something which is not real. In such cases the Court is required to assume something as real which in fact does not exist. But though the Court is required to give full effect to the fiction irrespective of the consequences, at the same time the Court is required to ascertain the purpose for which the fiction is created. The consequences of legal fiction cannot be extended beyond such purpose. 10. In Income-tax Commissioners, Bombay vs. Bombay Trust Corporation, AIR 1930 Privy Council 54, the Judicial Committee observed-"Now when a pension is "deemed to be" something, the only meaning possible is that whereas he is not in reality that something, the Act of Parliament requires him to be treated as if he were". 11. In State of Bombay vs. Pandurang Vinayak, AIR 1953 SC 244 , the Supreme Court quoted the following observations of Lord Justice James with approval-"When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, which in fact and truth was not done, the Court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between what persons the statutory fiction is to be restored to and full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclusion". 12. In State of Travancore-Cochin vs. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, AIR 1953 SC 333 , the Supreme Court observed-"When a legal fiction is thus created, for what purpose, one is led to ask at once, is it so created?" 13. Dealing with the controversy involved in the case the Court held-"The fiction of the Explanation cannot be extended to any person other than the purpose of Clause 1(a), that is, to any purpose other than the purpose of taking away the taxing power of all States outside whose territories the sale or purchase is, by the fiction deemed to take place. There its purpose ends and it cannot be used for the purpose of giving any taking power on the delivery State, for that is quite outside its avowed purpose". 14. In Bengal Immunity Co. There its purpose ends and it cannot be used for the purpose of giving any taking power on the delivery State, for that is quite outside its avowed purpose". 14. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1955 SC 661 , the same legal position was reiterated in these words : "A legal fiction is to be limited to the purpose for which it was created and should not be extended beyond that legitimate filed. The Explanation created a legal fiction. Legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose". 15. In State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan Rao, 1985 (2) SCC 321 , it was stated-"A legal fiction should not doubt ordinarily be carried to its logical end to carry out the purposes for which it is created but it cannot be carried beyond that". 16. Thus in order to understand the true scope of Rule 19(4)(a) it is necessary to as certain the purpose for which the employee is treated to "remain" in service and deemed to "finally retire" on expiry of his the leave notwithstanding his retirement on reaching the age of superannuation by a legal fiction. The true meaning and scope of the provision, in our opinion, becomes apparent from a conjoint reading of Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 19(4). While under Clause (a) the employee-subject to availability of unavailed ordinary leave as on the date of retirement the employee can avail leave subject to maximum of six months and yet to be treated to be in service, under Clause (b) he gets the lumpsum payment equivalent to pay as defined in Rule 3(j) plus admissible allowances as on the date of his retirement i.e. the normal date of retirement as per Rule 19(1) of the Staff Rules for the unavailed ordinary leave earned by him subject to maximum of six months. There may be cases where the employee is in urgent need of liquid money at the time of his retirement, say, for marriage of children, construction of house and so on. He may also like to invest the money for better returns in future. In such cases he may opt for a lumpsum payment under Clause (b). Where he opts to avail of leave subject to maximum of six months, he continues to be in service, while remaining on leave, entitled to the benefits of pay etc. He may also like to invest the money for better returns in future. In such cases he may opt for a lumpsum payment under Clause (b). Where he opts to avail of leave subject to maximum of six months, he continues to be in service, while remaining on leave, entitled to the benefits of pay etc. and other facilities but also subject to the rigours and obligations applicable to serving regular employees. Reference to the case of Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 , would bring home the point. In that case the Supreme Court rejected the plea that when a Government servant proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement he ceases to hold office. The Supreme Court pointed out that a government servant is in service till his service terminates and the service can terminate only by dismissal or removal. The date from which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement cannot be treated as the date of his retirement from service. 17. Thus, the object of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 19 of the Staff Rules is to confer certain benefits on the retiring employees. At the cost of repetition, if he opts to avail of leave subject to maximum of six months, and continue to receive salary and other benefits subject to obligations of the ordinary employees, there is no final cessation of the employer-employee relationship until the leave expires. Under Clause (b) he may be content with lumpsum payment of amount equivalent to pay plus admissible allowances as on the date of his retirement for the unavailed ordinary leave period, again, subject to maximum of six months. In such case the employer-employee relationship comes to an end on the date of retirement on superannuation or otherwise. Such being the object of the deemed extended service under Clause (a), whether the employee can claim any vested right to claim pension in terms of Pension Regulations? The answer, in the opinion, must be in the negative. In such case the employer-employee relationship comes to an end on the date of retirement on superannuation or otherwise. Such being the object of the deemed extended service under Clause (a), whether the employee can claim any vested right to claim pension in terms of Pension Regulations? The answer, in the opinion, must be in the negative. The "extension" of retirement by a legal fiction being for limited and specific purpose, namely, allowing the employee the benefits of service as applicable to serving employees for the period of ordinary leave earned by him not exceeding six months, depending on the exercise of option by the employee, it would be doing violence to the legal fiction to treat the employee at par with a serving employee who has not attained the age of superannuation for all intents and purposes. We are of the view that those who were in actual service upto 312.1985, that is, had not attained the age of superannuation as provided under Rule 19(1) of the Staff Rules and those who remained in "deemed" service by virtue of Clause (a) of Rule 19(4) of the Staff Rules from distinct and separate classes. Having regard to the true scope of Clause (a) of Rule 19(4) and the purpose for which they were treated to be in deemed service, those who retired prior to 01.01.1986 cannot compare themselves with those who retired afterwards. The expression "excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement" in Regulation 3(3) refers to the employees who opted to avail of leave under Rule 19(4)(a) and, being a class apart, their exclusion from the option clause in Regulation 3(3) can not be said to be illegal or arbitrary. 18. Our conclusion is in accord with the meaning of date of retirement in Regulation 2(6) of the Pension Regulations, to wit "the date on which an employee attains the age of superannuation. . . " and the explanation appended to Rule 19(4) of the Staff Rules, quoted above. Reference to Regulations 22 and 24 of the Pension Regulations also would appear to reinforce our interpretation. Regulation 22, it is relevant to point out, occurs in Chapter IV which is captioned "qualifying service". In term of Regulation 22, leave preparatory to retirement shall not count as qualifying service and pension shall not be payable during leave preparatory to retirement. Reference to Regulations 22 and 24 of the Pension Regulations also would appear to reinforce our interpretation. Regulation 22, it is relevant to point out, occurs in Chapter IV which is captioned "qualifying service". In term of Regulation 22, leave preparatory to retirement shall not count as qualifying service and pension shall not be payable during leave preparatory to retirement. Qualifying service has been defined under Regulation 2(10) to mean, "service rendered while on duty or otherwise". Regulation 24 which deals with superannuation pension also provides that superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired "on his attaining the age of superannuation provided that pension shall not be payable during leave preparatory to retirement". It is relevant to mention here that these provisions have not been challenged by the respondent in these proceedings. 19. The point at issue is not res integra. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 767 = 1992 Supp (1) SCC 664, a question arose as to whether the employees of the Reserve Bank retiring prior to 01.01.1986 could be denied option to switch over to the pension scheme contained in the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990 containing identical provisions as in NABARD Pension Regulations. As a matter of fact the NABARD Pension Regulations have been framed exactly on the same pattern as the RBI Pension Regulations. Regulation 3(3) of the RBI Pension Regulations contains identical provision regarding applicability of the scheme to retired employees of the Bank. Similarity of the provisions would be manifest from a bare glance at Regulation 3(3) of the RBI Regulations and Rule 26(4) of the RBI Staff Regulations which are the crucial provisions on interpretation of which the result of this case depends. Regulation 3(3) runs as follows- "Employees who were in service as on 01.01.1986 (excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement) and had retired before 011.1990, provided they exercise option to be governed by these Regulations and refund, within such period as may be specified, the Banks contribution to provident fund including interest received by them from the Bank together with simple interest at six percent per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of repayment. Pension shall be payable to them in accordance with Regulation 31". 20. Pension shall be payable to them in accordance with Regulation 31". 20. Regulation 26(4) runs as follows-"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Regulation, where an employee has ordinary leave earned but not availed of as on the date of retirement, he may at his option- .(a) be permitted to avail of leave subject to a maximum of six months in respect of leave earned under these Regulations and in that case the employee will be deemed to retire from service at the expiry of the leave. .(b) bepaid a lumpsum amount which would be equivalent to pay as defined in Regulation 3(f) of these Regulations as on the date of his retirement, for the unavailed ordinary leave earned subject to a maximum of six months plus dearness allowance in respect thereof ". 21. It would thus appear that RBI Staff Regulations contains identical provision pari materia with Rule 19(4) of NABARD Staff Rules regarding deemed retirement on expiry of admissible unutilized earned ordinary leave where the employee opts to avail of such leave. 22. As rightly submitted by Counsel for the respondent, the question which directly arose for consideration in RBI case (Supra) was no doubt somewhat different. The Association had challenged the cut-off dated 01.01.1986 as being artificial having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the introduction of the Pension Scheme in substitution of the extant CPF Scheme. Rejecting the contention of the Association the Supreme Court held that where an existing scheme is revised or liberalized, all those who are governed by the scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberalization. If the State desires to deny it to a group of persons governed by the scheme, it must justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14. But where a new scheme is introduced replacing the existing one the employees who retired prior to the coming into force of the new scheme cannot make any grievance of discrimination. Pointing out the distinction between CPF Scheme and the Pension Scheme the Court observed that in case of employee governed by CPF scheme his relations with the employer come to an end on his retirement and receipt of the CPF amount but in the case of employee governed by the pension scheme, his relations with the employer may undergo a change but do not snap altogether. In the case of pensioner it is necessary to revise the pension periodically as the continuous fall in the rupee value and the rise in prices of essential commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount but that is not the case with employees governed by the CPF scheme since they receive lump sum payment which they are at liberty to invest in a manner that would yield optimum return which would take care of the inflationary trends. The Supreme Court in this regard relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench in Krishena Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1990 (4) SCC 207 . 23. While considering the relevancy of the cut-off date 01.01.1986 the Court noticed the historical background in which the pension scheme had been introduced. The Court found that the demand of the Bank employees for introduction of pension scheme as a third retrial benefit recommended by the Study Group in its report submitted in 1981 was rejected by the Central Government some time in 1982. Thereafter a fresh demand was made for introduction of a pension scheme in substitution of the CPF scheme on the pattern of the pension scheme admissible to the Central Government employees. The proposal received the approval of the Central Government and accordingly the Reserve Bank introduced the Pension Regulations with effect from 011.1990. The cut-off date viz. 01.01.1986 was approved on the premise that service details pertaining to retired employees are maintained for five years and thereafter they are destroyed. Further, the Court found that the demand for a pension scheme similar to the one applicable to Central Government employees in place of the existing CPF Scheme was mooted by the in service Bank employees sometimes in 1986. 24. Having regard to the significance of the observations it would be profitable to extract the relevant parts as under: "9. The scheme introduced by he Regulations is a totally new one. It was not in existence prior to its introduction with effect from 011.1990. The employee of the Reserve Bank who had retired prior to that date were admittedly governed by the CPF scheme. They had received the benefit of employers contribution under that scheme and on superannuation the amount to their account was disbursed to them and they had put it to use also. The employee of the Reserve Bank who had retired prior to that date were admittedly governed by the CPF scheme. They had received the benefit of employers contribution under that scheme and on superannuation the amount to their account was disbursed to them and they had put it to use also. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the retrial benefits admissible to them under the extant Rules of the Bank had been paid to them. That was the social security plan available to them at the date of the retirement. The Bank employees were, however, clamoring for a pension scheme, firstly on a restricted basis as a third retrial benefit and later in lieu of the CPF scheme. The Central Government had not approved of a pension scheme, as a third retrial benefit. After that proposal was spurned it appears that the employees of the Bank demanded a pension scheme on the pattern of the scheme available to Central Government employees in lieu of the CPF scheme. This was approved by the Central Government and consequently it was introduced with effect from 011.1990 under the Regulations. There can, therefore, be no doubt that if the CPF retires were not admitted to this new scheme they could not make any grievance in that behalf . They had no right to claim coverage under the new pension scheme since they had already retired and had collected their retrial benefits from the employer. But the moot question is whether it was open to the employer to grant the benefit of the pension scheme to one group of CPF retirees who had retired from Bank service on or after 01.01.1986 and deny the same to all those who had retired on or before 312.1985. Is this division of CPF retirees discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 10. Nakaras Judgment has itself drawn a distinction between an existing scheme and a new scheme. Where an existing scheme is revised or liberalized all those who are governed by the said scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberalization and if the State desires to deny it to a group thereof , it must justif