JUDGMENT 1. These intra-court appeals have been preferred against the order dated 2.9.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2477/2000. 2. The petitioner, as per Section 19 of Staff Regulation 1960, on attaining the age of 60 years was to be retired with effect from 30.6.1993, however, he was retried on 31.5.1993. Thus, he claimed salary for one month and other reliefs in accordance with the Staff Regulation of 1960. He has also prayed for refund of interest of 29 months of Rs. 15,812.98/- deducted out of amount which was to be paid to him of Provident Fund Amount. Payment of commuted value of pension has been made in part and no interest has been paid on the delayed payment accrued thereupon. 3. Mr. Murlidhar Gupta, petitioner was appointed as Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation on 10.1.1958. He retired from service on 31.5.1993. Provident Fund Scheme was applicable at the time of retirement of the petitioner. On 28.6.1995, Government of India notified Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Pension Rules, 1995) which came into effect from 1.11.1993. The employees who had been retired after 1.1.1986 were to be given benefit of Pension Scheme, 1995. Corporation was directed to deposit interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum on Provident Fund Amount which was paid upto 31.10.1993. Petitioner submitted that he had retired on 31.5.1993, interest on Provident Fund amount could not have been deducted for the period from 1.6.1993 to 30.10.1993 and the payment of interest on other retrial benefits has not been made for the period from 1.11.1993 to 15.1.1996 which he ought to have been paid. He is entitled for salary of the month of June, 1993. He submitted that the petitioner qualified fellowship examination in the year 1970 thus he was entitled for special allowance of Rs. 240/- on basic pay and in pension, the Corporation added Rs. 100/ instead of Rs. 120/-. Dearness allowance has not been paid at similar rate and there could not have been any discrimination in the rate of dearness allowance payable on pension on the basis of date of retirement. Earlier Writ Petition No. 2272/1999 was preferred which was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file representation. He filed representation which came to be rejected on 11.1.2000. 4. Earlier Writ Petition No. 2272/1999 was preferred which was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file representation. He filed representation which came to be rejected on 11.1.2000. 4. Life Insurance Corporation denied the averments made and contended that the deduction made on the interest of Provident Fund Amount has rightly been made from 1.6.1993 to 31.10-1993 and other facts were also denied. 5. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ application holding that the petitioner is entitled for salary of the month of June, 1993 as he ought to have been retired on 30.6.1993. Interest which has been realised on contributory provident fund with effect from 1.6.1993 to 31.10.1993 of Rs. 2726.35/- has been ordered to be refunded. In pension, instead of Rs. 100/- technical allowance Rs. 120/- be added. A direction has also been issued to revise the pension and to give the benefits of revision of pension. Petitioner was also held entitled to get 6% per annum interest on all the retrial dues with effect from 1.11.1993 till the date of realization. Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Life Insurance Corporation has filed Special Appeal (Writ) No. 421/2004 whereas petitioner Murlidhar Gupta has also filed Special Appeal (Writ) No. 389/2005. 6. It was submitted by Shri M.D. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for Life Insurance Corporation that as per Pension Regulation, 1960, date of retirement was to be treated as 31.5.1993 as the date of retirement of the petitioner is 1.6.1993. Thus, the direction for payment of salary of the month of June, 1993 could not have been issued. It was also submitted that revision in technical allowance has no retrospective effect, hence the technical allowance of Rs. 200/- was rightly allowed to the petitioner and arrears were also paid at the rate of Rs. 100/- to the petitioner. Direction with respect to interest on provident fund amount from 1.6.1993 to 31.10.1993 has also been questioned. 7. Mr. Manoj Pareek learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge is appropriate as per the prevalent Regulation at the time when Murlidhar Gupta had retired, he ought to have been retired with effect from 30.06.1993, as his date of birth is 1.6.1993. 7. Mr. Manoj Pareek learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge is appropriate as per the prevalent Regulation at the time when Murlidhar Gupta had retired, he ought to have been retired with effect from 30.06.1993, as his date of birth is 1.6.1993. Interest could not have been deducted for the period from 1.6.1993 to 31.10.1993 as held by this court in Prahlad Rai Khemka v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, 1999 (3) WLC (Raj.) 101. Counsel has also submitted that technical allowance has rightly been ordered to be paid at Rs. 120/- in pension. While pressing the appeal preferred by the employee it was submitted that there could not have been any difference in the rate of Dearness Allowance as held by the court in Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2010 (3) WLC (Raj.) 214 which was affirmed by Division Bench and the review application has already been dismissed. Consequently, different rate of dearness allowance on pension could not have been permitted to prevail. 8. First coming to the question of date of retirement, the provisions which were invogue at the time of retirement was Staff Regulation, 1960, Section 19(1) whereof provides that in case an employee is to retire on the attaining superannuation age he shall retire with effect from last day of the month in which he attains the superannuation age. The employee attained the age of superannuation on 1.06.1993. Rule 19 (1) of Staff Regulation 1960 is quoted herein below:- "An employee belonging to class III or IV or a transferred employee belonging to class I or II shall retire on completion of age 60 but the appointing authority may direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter, if his efficiency is found to have been impaired. Provided that an employee who is a member of any approved superannuation fund, as defined in clause (a) of Section 58-N of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and which has been recognised and allowed to be continued by the Corporation, shall be permitted upon request to retire before the date of retirement specified in this sub regulation either (a) on completion of 25 years of service of (b) on completion of 20 years of service, provided he has reached age 50 or on completion of 20 years of service it he is incapacitated for further active service. A note is also given under this rule which is as under-- "Note-Where an employee is to retire on attaining superannuation age he shall retire with effect from the last day of the month in which he attains the superannuation age." 9. Rule 5, of the Pension Rules, 1995 has been relied upon which provides that an employee who attains the age of superannuation on any day other than 1st shall retire in the afternoon of the last day of month in which he attains the age of superannuation. Rule 5 has been made applicable to those who are born on 1st day of succeeding month and in case the person born on 2nd day of the month would retire on last of day of afternoon of the month in which one is to retire. This requirement is not attracted in the case of the petitioner as he has retired in the year 1993 when these regulations were not in force and they came into effect from 1.11.1993. Thus, the decision of the learned Single Judge is upheld and the petitioner is entitled for the salary of the month of June, 1993 and his date of retirement as per requirement of Section 19(1) of Staff Regulation has to be treated as 30th June, 1993 we are in accord with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Once an employee has rendered service under relevant provisions which were in force on the date of retirement and has retired on a particular date it cannot be changed by any subsequent Regulation. In our opinion, no interference is called for in the aforesaid relief granted to the petitioner. 10. Coming to the question of payment of interest with effect from 1.6.1993 to 31.10.1993 of Rs. In our opinion, no interference is called for in the aforesaid relief granted to the petitioner. 10. Coming to the question of payment of interest with effect from 1.6.1993 to 31.10.1993 of Rs. 2726.35/-, the provisions in this regard are contained in Life Insurance Corporation Employees Rules, 1995. Rule 3 contained in Chapter II provides for payment of 6% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund Account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Corporation. In this case, it is evident on record that the employee has to refund the Life Insurance Corporation P.F. plus interest paid to him along with further simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. As no pension was paid for the period from 1.6.1993 to 31.10.1993, the interest charged on the amount of Life Insurance Corporation Contribution to P.F. is not proper in the light of the decision in the case of Prahlad Rai Khemka (supra). In Prahlad Rai Khema's case, this court has laid down that benefit was available from 1.11.1993, petitioner was paid arrears of pension from November, 1993 and interest on arrears at the rate of 6% per annum was not chargeable from petitioner from the date of retirement till 31.10.1993. 11. Coming to the question of technical allowance payable at Rs. 100/- or 120/-, the learned Single Judge ordered payment at the rate of Rs. 120/-. There is categorical averment made in the reply filed by the LIC that the technical allowance was calculated @ Rs. 200/- per month and pension of the petitioner was also worked out accordingly by addition of 1/2 amount i.e. Rs. 100/- per month. The technical allowance was revised from Rs. 200/- to 240/- per month w.e.f. 1.8.1994 while the petitioner had already retired on 31.5.1993. This revision in technical allowance had no retrospective effect and hence the technical allowance of Rs. 200/- was rightly allowed to the petitioner. We Find that petitioner has not been able to controvert the aforesaid contention that the petitioner was paid Rs. 200/- and the technical allowance was revised to, Rs. 240/- from 1.8.1994, in the absence of retrospective effect only a sum of Rs. 100/- was liable to be added out of Rs. 2001/- which had been added by the appellant. We Find that petitioner has not been able to controvert the aforesaid contention that the petitioner was paid Rs. 200/- and the technical allowance was revised to, Rs. 240/- from 1.8.1994, in the absence of retrospective effect only a sum of Rs. 100/- was liable to be added out of Rs. 2001/- which had been added by the appellant. Thus, we set aside the aforesaid direction No. 3 issued by the learned Single Judge for adding Rs. 120/- of technical allowance instead of Rs. 100/-. 12. Coming to the direction No. 5 issued by learned Single Judge giving benefit of 6% interest on amount paid in 1996 is not proper as the Government of India introduced Pension Scheme with effect from 1.11.1993 for those employees who retired after 1.1.1986 and opt for Pension Scheme. The pension Scheme was introduced first time on 28.6.1995 and therefore the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for payment of 6% interest w.e.f. 1.11.1993 was uncalled for as Pension Scheme was introduced on 28.6.1995, the order with respect to payment of interest w.e.f. 1.11.1993 is set aside. 13. Coming to the next question with respect to dearness allowance, it has been decided in Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2010 (3) WLC (Raj.) 214 , which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in which it has been held that there cannot be any discrimination in the dearness allowance and it has to be calculated from the date of retirement. Thus, we are not inclined to take a different view on the question of rate of dearness allowance.In the light of the aforesaid decision, the appeal filed by Life Insurance Corporation is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the employee is allowed to the aforesaid extent.Parties to bear their own costs.Both appeals partly allowed. *******