JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. The subject matter of controversy as well as the point of determination being common in both these two appeals, both these appeals are heard analogously. 2. In Writ Appeal No. 8/06 the judgment and order dated 18.5.2004 passed in WP(C) No. 36/02(AB) is the subject matter of challenge and on the other hand in Writ Appeal No. 9/06 the judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed in WP (C) No. 3237/2000 is challenged. In fact, WP(C) No. 36/02 was decided following the ratio laid down in the decision rendered in WPC (No.) 3237/2000 holding that the direction issued in the said writ petition would be applicable to the petitioner in WP(C) No. 36/02. 3. We have heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. The members of the petitioner's association in WP(C) No. 3237/2000 as well as the petitioner in the other WP(C) No. 36/02 were the employees under the Government of Mizoram in different capacities and all of them have superannuated from their respective services in the year 1996. The Govt. of India constituted the 5th Pay Commission for consideration of revision of pay scales as well as other ancillary service benefits to the employees and pensioners of the Central Govt. and the report of 5th Pay Commission so submitted by the commission was decided to be accepted by the State of Mizoram by issuing a notification dated 26.8.1998. The said notification was issued in exercise of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India declaring that the central pay scales should be made applicable for all posts under the Govt. of Mizoram other than the posts mentioned therein at the same level of corresponding posts under the Govt. of India. However, in Clause-5 of the said notification there was a reservation that the new central pay scales would be adopted w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the modalities and issues related to payment of arrears would, however, be considered separately. It was further stated in the said notification that the condition of service of Govt. employees including facilities and amenities to be provided, would be incorporated in the Pay Rules to be adopted by the Govt. in due course and the existing facilities and conditions would continue to apply till such rules are adopted. 5. It was further stated in the said notification that the condition of service of Govt. employees including facilities and amenities to be provided, would be incorporated in the Pay Rules to be adopted by the Govt. in due course and the existing facilities and conditions would continue to apply till such rules are adopted. 5. Thereafter, the Mizoram Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 was framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India vide notification dated 9.7.1999 by the Govt. of Mizoram. In Clause 4(3) of the said Rules it is provided that the revised scale of pay shall be effective from the 1st day of January, 1996 for the purpose of notional fixation of pay and pensionary benefits, while the actual monetary benefit shall be available only w.e.f. 1st day of May, 1999 for all the employees and new pensioners to whom these rules shall apply. 6. After framing of the aforesaid Rules, the Govt. of Mizoram framed another set of Rules, namely the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay), (Extension to State Government Employees of Mizoram) Rules, 1999 vide notification dated 4.10.1999. as per clause 2 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) ( Extension to State Government Employees of Mizoram) Rules, 1999 with all annexures as in force on the 1st day of January, 1996 in respect of the persons appointed to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, whose pay is debitable to the Civil estimates to whom it really extends and applies, is hereby extended and applied to the State Government employees of Mizoram on the basis of standard conversion of pay scale subject to the modifications specified hereinafter and as mentioned in the schedule-A to these Rules. In paragraph-2 of annexure-A appended to the said Rules it is provided that the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 would be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of January, 1996 for the purpose of notional fixation only, while for all monetary benefits these Rules may be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of May, 1999. 7. The Govt. 7. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions by issuing a notification dated 17.12.1998 upon consideration of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission regarding revision of pensions and family pensions, notified inter-alia that w.e.f. 1.1.1996 pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioners. 8. In tune of the aforesaid notifications and in view of the decision of the Govt. of Mizoram to provide actual monetary benefit regarding revision of pay as per recommendation of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.5.1999, an office memorandum dated 15.10.1999 was issued by the State Govt. revising the provision regulating to pension/communication of pension. Clause 3.1 of the said memorandum provides that the revised provisions as per the orders would apply to Govt. servants who retire/die-in-harness on or after 1.1.1996 and separate orders in respect of employees who retired/died-in-harness before 1.1.1996, would also be issued and the revised provisions with effect from 1.1.1996 notionally with actual monetary benefit from 1.5.1999 would be applicable. Clause 5 of the said memorandum provides that pension would continue to be calculated as 50% of average emoluments in all cases and would be subject to a minimum of Rs. 1275/- and maximum upto 50% of highest pay under the Govt. of Mizoram. 9. In another office memorandum dated 20.10.1999, in Clause-4(2) it is provided that in case when the pension consolidated is treated as the final pension, it shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for the post last held by the pensioner at the time of his retirement. 10. By issuing another memorandum dated 11.2.2000, the State Govt. declared their decision that w.e.f 1.1.1996 pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement would not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with actual benefit from 1.5.1999 to the post last held by the pensioner. 11. 10. By issuing another memorandum dated 11.2.2000, the State Govt. declared their decision that w.e.f 1.1.1996 pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement would not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with actual benefit from 1.5.1999 to the post last held by the pensioner. 11. The grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that the State of Mizoram having adopted the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission vide notification dated 26.8.1998 for the employees of the State of Mizoram w.e.f 1.1.1996 the petitioners are entitled to get their pensionary benefits with effect from that date itself. It is further contended that the decision of the State Govt. to provide actual monetary benefit in payment of the pensionary benefit to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.5.1999 is illegal arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. The denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioners as per revised pay scales so recommended by the Central 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is contended to be unreasonable classification and not based on any intelligible differentia without having any nexus of any true purpose stated to be achieved thereby. 12. The stand of the respondents on the other hand is that the State Govt. had taken such policy decision to provide monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1999 which is well within the power of the State Govt. to fix a cut off date for payment of the pensionary benefit and the revised pay scales and that was done due to financial crunch of the State Government. The allegations of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and discriminatory treatment have been stoutly denied. It is contended that such monetary benefit as per recommendation of 5th Pay Commission has been paid w.e.f. 1.5.1999 both to the existing employees as well as in the payment of pensionary benefits of the petitioners and both classes of employees, existing and retired, have been treated alike and there is no discriminatory treatment in this regard. 13. It is contended that such monetary benefit as per recommendation of 5th Pay Commission has been paid w.e.f. 1.5.1999 both to the existing employees as well as in the payment of pensionary benefits of the petitioners and both classes of employees, existing and retired, have been treated alike and there is no discriminatory treatment in this regard. 13. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed in WP(C) No. 3237/2000 held that the State of Mizoram having issued the notification dated 26.8.1998 under Section 309 of the Constitution adopting the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission to the employees in the State of Mizoram w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is not entitled to resile therefrom and deny such benefit at a subsequent stage by deciding to pay the monetary benefit to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.5.1999 only. It is further held that the monetary benefits having once been granted, the same cannot be withdrawn subsequently and on such consideration directed the State respondents to pay the monetary benefit to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996 itself. 14. Challenging the impugned judgment, Mr. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the appellants has submitted that vide notification dated 26.8.1998 it was reserved that the modalities and payment of arrears would be considered separately and the condition of services of Govt. employees including the facilities and amenities would also be incorporated in the Pay Rules that would be adopted by the Govt. subsequently, at a later stage. In terms of the aforesaid reservation, the Mizoram Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 was framed under Article309 of the Constitution whereby it was specifically provided that the revised scale of pay shall be effective w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for the purpose of notional fixation of pensionary benefit while the actual monetary benefit would ,be made available w.e.f. 1.5.1999. It is further contended that the aforesaid decision for fixing the date of actual monetary benefit was taken as a matter of policy decision by the Govt. due to financial crunch of the State Government. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay), (Extension to State Government Employees of Mizoram) Rules, 1999 was also framed modifying the date of application contained in the aforesaid Central Rules to that of 1.5.1999 in case of employees in the State of Mizoram. Regarding the payment of the retiral benefit in terms of the notification of the Central Govt. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay), (Extension to State Government Employees of Mizoram) Rules, 1999 was also framed modifying the date of application contained in the aforesaid Central Rules to that of 1.5.1999 in case of employees in the State of Mizoram. Regarding the payment of the retiral benefit in terms of the notification of the Central Govt. dated 17.12.1998, it is contended that by issuing notifications dated 20.10.1999 and 11.2.2000 due care has been taken for payment of pensions not less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with actual monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1999. 15. Mr. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, supporting the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, reiterates that the State of Mizoram having decided to adopt the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1996 by issuing notification dated 26.8.1998, the same cannot be subsequently denied to the petitioners fixing a different date i.e. 1.5.1999 on the ground of financial hardship. It is contended that the pension is not a bounty but it is a valuable right of the Govt. employees in recognition of their past services. In view of the aforesaid notification dated 26.8.1998 valuable right has been accrued upon the petitioners to get the pensionary benefit at revised scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and such right vested upon the petitioner cannot be taken away subsequently. Learned Counsels in support of their respective contentions relied upon the following decisions: 1. (1997) 6 SCC 623 (Chairman Railway Board and Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Ors.). 2. (1994) 5 SCC 450 (Union of India and Ors. v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and Ors.); 3. (1990) 2 SCC 707 (Mallikarjuna Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.), and 4. (1991) 1 SCC 544 (A.K. Bhatnagar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) It is to be noted that the constitutional validity of the relevant statutory service Rules framed by the State of Mizoram have not been questioned by the writ petitioners. 16. We have considered the rival submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties. On calling upon by the Court, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellants in the appeal. 16. We have considered the rival submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties. On calling upon by the Court, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellants in the appeal. In the said additional affidavit it is contended as follows: (i) That the State Appellant took a decision in September-October, 1999 only with regard to adoption of central pay-scales based on the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission, w.e.f. 1.5.1999, fixing 1.1.1996 as the date for notional fixation of pay. (ii) That the State Appellant implemented the said Pay Commission's recommendations with actual monetary benefit from 1.5.1999 and not from 1.1.1996 due to acute financial constraint faced by the State Government. The State Government is not in a position to pay the arrears of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It may be submitted herein that at the relevant time, the State Government due to acute financial hardships could somehow pay the Government Servants their salaries at the pre-revised rate only. (iii) That the aforesaid decision was taken by the State Government after due consultation with the Federation of Mizoram Government Employees and Workers. In fact, no such service body/union/association has complained this adoption of the 5th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.5.1999 and fixing 1.1.1996 as the date for notional fixation of pay. 17. A close perusal of the notification dated 26.8.1998 disclose that the State of Mizoram adopted the new pay scales as recommended by 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1996, but the modalities and issues regarding the payment of arrears left to be considered separately. In the said notification the condition of services and the facilities and amenities to be provided as per recommendation of the pay commission was also kept reserved to be adopted by incorporating in the Pay Rules subsequently. By framing the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Extension to State Government Employees of Mizoram) Rules, 1999 under Article 309 of the Constitution, the Govt. of Mizoram fixed the date of application of the Central Rule in the State of Mizoram w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for the purpose of notional fixation and for providing the monetary benefit the date was fixed as 1.5.1999. The relevant Rules farmed by the Central Govt. have been modified by the Govt. of Mizoram incorporating the date of acceptance of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for providing actual monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1999. The relevant Rules farmed by the Central Govt. have been modified by the Govt. of Mizoram incorporating the date of acceptance of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for providing actual monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1999. The notification dated 26.8.1998 was not a final one and the modalities regarding the payment of arrears was kept reserved under the said notification. The subsequent amendments of different Rules and issuance of notifications by the Govt. of Mizoram as indicated hereinabove disclose that the State of Mizoram vide notification dated 26.8.1998 did not intend that actual monetary benefit would be given to the employees, both existing and retired w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as per recommendation of 5th Pay Commission. Two different dates adopted by the State of Mizoram for adopting the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission. The notional benefit of the revised pay scale was adopted to be provided w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the actual monetary benefit was decided to be provided w.e.f. 1.5.1999. The power of the State Government to issue such cut off dates has not been disputed at the bar and such power do exists with the State Government. Whenever a revision of pay order takes place, a cut off date becomes imperative in as much as the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government concerned. (Ref Hariram Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1998) 6 SCC 328 ). 18. It is true that accrued right vested upon an employee cannot be taken away subsequently as contended by Mr. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the respondents. The principle of law laid down in 1997 (6) SCC 623 as referred to Mr. Lalramzauva is not at all doubted but no such right that was accrued upon the respondents could be shown by the learned Counsel. Though the learned Counsel submits that by notification dated 26.8.1998 the rights upon the respondents has been crystallized, but on a close perusal of the said notification it appears, that it was not so, in fact, the State government reserved their right to fix the modalities and issues relating to payment of arrears, benefits etc. at a subsequent stage. 19. The decision rendered in the case of U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. at a subsequent stage. 19. The decision rendered in the case of U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630 as cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In the said case, there only one date i.e. 1.1.1996 was adopted to accept the recommendation of revised pay and there was no separate date for giving actual monetary benefit as in the case in hand. Accordingly, the said case and other referred cases so relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents do not come to the assistance of the respondents/writ petitioners. 20. The financial benefit decided to be provided w.e.f. 1.5.1999 covered the existing and retired employees. No different treatment have shown to have been meted with these two classes of employees nor any other discriminatory treatment could be shown between the two classes in providing the monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1999. The purpose for making a cut off date for monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1999, as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General is due to financial constraints faced by the State Govt. and the State Govt. was not in a position to pay the arrears pay or pension w.e.f 1.1.1996. That apart, as indicated above, the notification dated 26.8.1998 was not a final one as regards the modalities of the payment of arrears and pensions, which was kept reserved to be decided subsequently and it was decided subsequently adopting the date of providing monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1999. 21. In view of the above discussions, the contention of the writ petitioners is not acceptable and the decision in fixing of cut off date from 1.5.1999 for providing financial benefit to the writ petitioners taken by the State Government by way of policy decision is not liable to be interfered with. 22. Consequently, both the appeals stand allowed. The judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed in WP(C) No. 3237/2000 and dated 18.5.2004 passed in WP(C) No. 36/02 rendered by the learned Single Judge are hereby set aside. Consequently, both the appeal and the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 36/02 (AB) and WP(C) No. 3237/2000 stand dismissed. No costs. 23. No costs. Appeal allowed