Judgment Jora Singh, J. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 3349 CAT, 17126 CATof 2006, 2246 CAT, 11256 CAT, 12143 CAT, 12365 CAT, 12586 CATof 2007 and 2581 CAT of 2008 as identical question of law has been raised in all these writ petitions. The petitioner-Administration has approached this Court challenging the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity the Tribunal) in OA No. 558 CH/2004. 2. The broad factual matrix may first be noticed. The employees of the Union Territory, Chandigarh who have retired prior to 1.1.1986 had approached the Tribunal by filing various Original Applications with the grievance that all other employees/ retirees w.e.f. 1.4.1991 have been given the benefit of Punjab Civil Service Rules/Orders but the same has not been made applicable to them merely on the basis that they had retired prior to 1.1.1986. The Tribunal has found that the action of the petitioner Administration amounted to creating an artificial Classification amongst the retirees which is impermissible by virtue of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. Those retirees have asked for extending the benefits accruing from the order dated 27.9.1992 (Annexure A. 11) which reads as follow: Subject: Liberalization of pensionary benefits of the State Govt. Pensioners on the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. In pursuance of clause (C) of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, letter No. 1401571/88 GPII,dated28.11.1991 read with their Notification No. 14021/ 2/898 CHD dated 13.1.1992, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to adopt the Punjab Govts circular letter No. 1/15/890-IFP IIl/8078 dated 31 st August, 1989, copy enclosed in respect of the Govt. Pensioners of Union Territory, Chandigarh w.e.f. 1.4.1991. 3. It is appropriate to notice that the afore-mentioned notification has adopted the order passed by the State of Punjab on 31.8.1989 (A. 10). They have asked for extension of two kind of benefits viz. (a) the medical facilities as are admissible under the Punjab Civil Service Rules and (b) payment of liberalised pension/retiral benefits. 4. According to the Tribunal the first Claim made by the retirees was to the effect that fixed medical allowance w.e.f. 1.4.1991 onwards be extended to them. They have asked for extension of two kind of benefits viz. (a) the medical facilities as are admissible under the Punjab Civil Service Rules and (b) payment of liberalised pension/retiral benefits. 4. According to the Tribunal the first Claim made by the retirees was to the effect that fixed medical allowance w.e.f. 1.4.1991 onwards be extended to them. The Tribunal proceeded to notice the decision of the Administration dated 9.1.1998 granting the aforesaid benefits which reads thus : Subject: Implementation of the recommendations of the fourth Punjab Pay Commission - Grant of Fixed Medical allowance to Punjab Govt. employees/ Pensioners, on uniform basis for outdoor treatment, without any Option. Sir, I am directed to address you on the subject noted above and to- say that the Punjab Government as per their letter No. 5/22/97. IFPI/11179 dated 31.12.97 (copy enclosed) have granted a Fixed Medical Allowance of Rs. 250/- per month instead of Rs. 150/- per month as recommended by the Fourth Punjab Pay Commission, to all eligible government employees/ pensioners on a uniform basis w.e.f. 1.1.1998, without any Option. There shall be no reimbursement for outdoor treatment at all with effect from and after 1.1.1998. In pursuance of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs notification No. 14012/2/88 CHD dated 13.1.1992 read with Home Department letter No. 88.46 1 H(4)-92/18636 dated 29.10.1992, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleaded to adopt the above Punjab Government letter dated 31.12.1997, in favour of employees/ pensioners of UT Chandigarh as well as deputationists of Punjab Government and Haryana Government etc. 5. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner- Administration refusing to grant these benefits to its retirees w.e.f. 1.4.1991 because it would result into creating two cadres of retirees which is impermissible in law. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the retirees might be getting pension under different category of service on account of the decision taken by the Administration from time to time. But the factual position continues to be that all those persons constituted one dass of retirees of the Chandigarh Administration. It was further noticed that the notification and the decision to which reference has been made in the preceding para do not create any such distinction to extend some extra benefit to a certain class of retirees while denying the same to the others who had retired prior to 1.1.1986. 6. It was further noticed that the notification and the decision to which reference has been made in the preceding para do not create any such distinction to extend some extra benefit to a certain class of retirees while denying the same to the others who had retired prior to 1.1.1986. 6. With regard to the other relief, the Tribunal has placed reliance on a decision taken by the petitioner-Administration in its circular dated 5.9.2005. In the circular, the petitioner- Administration has taken into consideration some retirees who were enjoying UGC scales and that could not be given notional fixation in Punjab scales as adopted by the Administration w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Despite that the administration had decided and held them entitled for other retiral benefits as were admissible to other retirees of the petitioner-Administration. It made reference to atleast 15 persons and conveyed the decision as follows: "(For Sr. Nos. 4 and 14) - They are not entitled for notional fixation of pay as already conveyed vide our letter No. 6945 UTF 11(12)-29004/5388 dated 30.8.2004. However, they are entitled for other retiral benefits as is being given in this letter to other retirees who are enjoying pay scales under UGC. The details of pensionary/retiral benefits to which the aforesaid mentioned pensioners are now entitled to are as under: 1. Retiral benefits: All benefits as granted by the Punjab Government to its pensioners vide letter No. 1/1-5/89-IFP 111/8078 dated 31,8.89 as adopted by the Chandigarh Administration vide Memo No. FIJ(7) 92/9776 dated 27.8.1992, for its pensioners from 1.4.1991 i.e. Old Age Pension, Travel Concession etc. 2. Medical Facilities (including Fixed Medical Allowance) All medical facilities as are admissible to their counterparts in Punjab Government and treat the pensioners at par with serving employees in the matter of grant of these facilities as per Chandigarh Administrations ietter No. 4794 UTF 11(14) 97/22730 dated 24.12.1997 and amended from time to time. These medical facilities (including grant of fixed medical ailowance) shall, however, be admissible to the petitioners/non-petitioners w.e.f. 4.3.1995 in view of decision taken by the Administration vide No. 778 UTF 11(14) 2000/ 1738 dated 21.2.2000 on the basis of Orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 181 CH 97 UT Pensioners Weifare Association and others. These medical facilities (including grant of fixed medical ailowance) shall, however, be admissible to the petitioners/non-petitioners w.e.f. 4.3.1995 in view of decision taken by the Administration vide No. 778 UTF 11(14) 2000/ 1738 dated 21.2.2000 on the basis of Orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 181 CH 97 UT Pensioners Weifare Association and others. As per the Orders of the Tribunal, the arrears arising grant of retirat benefits, as mentioned above, may be worked out immediately and payment may be made to the petitioners/non-petitioners through appropriate person disbursing authorities/banks in consultation with the Accountant General (A&E) UT, Chandigarh under intimation to this Department." 7. After noticing the afore-mentioned facts the Tribunal issued directions to the petitioner-Administration to extend the post retiral benefits and medical facilities w.e.f. 1.4.1991 onwards to the retirees as was admissible to other U.T. retirees who had retired pn or before.l ,4.1991 which was to include the benefit of liberalised Punjab Pension Rufes and medical facilities as per the decision mentioned above particular the decision dated 5.9.2005. Aggrieved by the afore-mentioned view taken by the Tribunal, the petitioner-administration has approached this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. 9. The undisputed facts in the present case are that the applicants in the Original Applications are retirees before 1.1.1986. The retirees after 1.1.1986 have been granted the benefit under the notification dated 13.1.2002 (A.2) with regard to payment of liberalised pension and medica! facilities, The Tribunal, as already noticed, has taken the view that the petitioner- Administration cannot create an artificial Classification amongst the retirees by restricting the grant of benefit to the retirees of post 1.1.1986 and refuse the same to those like the applicants in the Original Applications who are retirees before 1.1.1986. 10. The answer to the afore-mentioned question hinges on whether the retirees before 1.1.1986 and after 1.1.1986 would constitute two distinct classes or it is dividing one homogeneous ciass of retirees into two artificial classes. The petitioner- Administration has been justifying its actions by treating the retirees of two types on the basis of service rules applicable to both type of retirees and argued that their conditions of service were different than those of the applicants-contesting respondents. The petitioner- Administration has been justifying its actions by treating the retirees of two types on the basis of service rules applicable to both type of retirees and argued that their conditions of service were different than those of the applicants-contesting respondents. According to the Administration they cannot constitute distinct class for the purposes of retiral benefits even if they are governed by different conditions of service. It seems to us that the basic question which falls for consideration is whether the Classification sought to be projected by the petitioner-Administration satisfies the twin test of Article 14 of the Constitution being founded on an intelligibie differentia which distinguishes person or things that are grouped together for grant of benefit leavJng out other and that differentia had a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The action of the petitioner-Administration can be sustained if it could satisfy, the twin test. It could satisfy the twin test if it establishas not only the rational principle on which Classification is founded but it also coreiates the same to the object sought to be achieved. The afore-mentioned principle was laid down in the celebrated judgement of Honble the Supreme Court in the cases of State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75. and Ram Krishna Dalimia vs. S.R. Tandolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538. When the revision in pension is ordered the underiying principle of revision is to keep the same closer to the price index, the deprecated money value has to be recouped by announcing increase in pay and Pension. 11. The argument of the petitioner-Administration that retirees before 1.1.1986 were governed by different condition of service than the one which were applicable to the retirees after 1.1.1986 may appear to be attractive at the first blush but it fails to answer the twin test laid down in the cases of Anwar Ali Sarkar and Ram Krishna Dalmias case (supra) because the application of different service rules for the purposes of regulating conditions of service has no co-reiation with the object for revising the Pension. It would amount to saying that in a service a person with fair complexion would be selected as against the person with dark complexion. It would amount to saying that in a service a person with fair complexion would be selected as against the person with dark complexion. The distinction between the two may sound attractive but does not have any co-relationship with the object of selection which has to select the best one with all capabilities available in the field. Ukewise, the argument raised by the petitioner- Administration would simply lack merit and is thus liable to be rejected. Even otherwise, the matter is not res integra as in the case reported as V. Kasturi vs. Managing Director, 1998(8) SCC 30 a similar question was raised and was answered by their Lordships in para 22 which reads thus : "If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same dass of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a Situation, the additional benefit available to the same dass of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid benefit was conferred on all the members of the same dass of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decision tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara case would cover this category of cases." 12. The afore-mentioned principle has been followed by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Subarea Seen vs. UOI, 2001 (8) SCC 71. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Ram Sarup ASl (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 2001(3) SCT 562; State of Punjab vs. J.L. Gupta, 2000(2) SCC 736 and State of Punjab and others vs. Boota Singh and another, 2000(3) SCC 733. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Ram Sarup ASl (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 2001(3) SCT 562; State of Punjab vs. J.L. Gupta, 2000(2) SCC 736 and State of Punjab and others vs. Boota Singh and another, 2000(3) SCC 733. 14. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner-Administration based on the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of J.L. Gupta and Boota Singh (supra) do not call for detailed examination because there the question of treating the dearness allowance as dearness pay was considered by referring to the cut off date. The notification issued later in point of time merging dearness allowance with dearness pay was made the basis for calculation of pension for employees who have retired on or after 31.3.1985. The Claim made by the retirees prior to 31.3.1985 was rejected for obvious reasons. There was no legislation conferring the right of merging dearness allowance with dearness pay in respect of the retirees from 31.3.1985. Therefore, we find that the judgements in J.L. Gupta and Boota Singhs cases (supra) have no application to the facts of the present case particularly when the notification itself does not make any such distinction. In view of the above, all the writ petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed