Judgment ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. Applicability or otherwise of the 'Scheme for grant of One Time Increase in pension to Armed Forces Personnel' to the family pensioners is the subject matter in this writ appeal. 2. The respondents herein are the widows/legal heirs of the deceased Armed Forces Personnel, who, having served in the defence services, retired/discharged from their services prior to 1.1.1986. According to the respondents, after retirement/discharge from their defence services, the deceased personnel remained unemployed till their death and after the death of the said retired armed personnel, the respondents, being the widows/legal heirs are receiving the military pension. 3. While so, the Government of India, by their proceedings dated 16.3.1992 announced a Scheme for grant of One time increase in pension retrospectively from 1.1.1992 to Armed Forces Personnel who retired before 1.1.1986. The said Scheme was made applicable to 'In Service/Retiring Pensioners of the Armed Forces below the rank of Colonel and equivalent who retired before 1.1.1986 and in the Retiring Pension of Colonel and above who retired before 1.1.1973.' Since the benefits of the said Scheme were not extended to the respondents/family pensioners and their request to the authorities also did not evince any favourable order, they have come forward to initiate the present writ proceedings for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the authorities to grant them one time increase in pension with effect from 1.1.1992, together with the Dearness Relief as available to the other ex-servicemen as per the letter of the Director (Pensions), Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, dated 16.3.1992. As the learned single Judge, by the order dated 7.8.2000, has allowed the said writ petition, the Administration has come forward to prefer this Writ Appeal. 4. There is no doubt that the Scheme has been intended for application to a particular class of employees and the objection raised by the Administration to the claim of the respondents/family pensioners is that the Scheme is specifically applicable to only living pensioners of various categories and not to the family pensioners. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that all the pensioners would form a homogeneous class and cannot be differentiated on any ground and therefore, the stand taken by the Administration need to be rejected. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that all the pensioners would form a homogeneous class and cannot be differentiated on any ground and therefore, the stand taken by the Administration need to be rejected. For this, he has relied on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India [ (1983) 1 SCC 305 ]. 6. It is to be mentioned that the above judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Nakara's case was considered in a subsequent Constitution Bench decision in Krishena Kumar vs. Union of India [ (1990) 4 SCC 207 ] and it was explained therein that 'pension retirees and provident fund retirees do not for one homogeneous class and rules governing provident fund'. 7. In Hari Ram Gupta (dead) through L.R. Kasturi Devi vs. State of U.P. [ (1998) 6 SCC 328 ], the Honourable Apex Court has held that 'whenever Government or any other State authority frames scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, it is not always possible due to many constrains, to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the date of superannuation. Any revised scheme in respect of postretirement benefits, if implemented with cut-off date, which is reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14, 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.' Therefore, we cannot find fault with the Administration in fixing a cut-off date for extension of the benefits of the One Time Increment Scheme. 8. As already stated, the said Scheme has been introduced for grant of One Time Increase in pension to only living pensioners of various categories and not to the family pensioners and it has not been intended to be extended to the family pensioners. However, even though the claim of the writ petitioners is that the family pensioners also should have been included in the One Time Increment Scheme, they have not challenged the said Scheme. 9. However, even though the claim of the writ petitioners is that the family pensioners also should have been included in the One Time Increment Scheme, they have not challenged the said Scheme. 9. Further, from the materials placed on record, we are able to see that considering the plight of armed forces pensioners/family pensioners, in respect of all Armed Forces pensioners below officer's rank, who retired prior to 1.1.1986 for whom ex-gratia one time increase was sanctioned from 1.1.1992, basic pension was revised upwards w.e.f. 1.1.1996 (the date of implementation of V Central Pay Commission's recommendation relating to pensions) and these orders are also made applicable to family pensioners whose family pension was drawn prior to 1.1.986 as also 1.1.1996 was revised at a uniform rate of 30% of the scales/notional scales last drawn by their spouse vide para 12-3 ibid and under this, re-employed pensioners and family pensioners who are employed are also covered irrespective of the date of retirement and all past pensioners are brought on par with pensioners who retired after 1.1.1996. Thus, for the welfare of the family pensioners, a separate scheme has been evaluated and implemented by the Administration. Therefore, we cannot also say that the family pensioners are in any way discriminated by the Administration. 10. In view of the above legal and factual position, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned single Judge has committed a legal error in accepting the prayer of the family pensioners, whose cases are not covered under the scheme, when the very Scheme is not under challenge and when benefits were extended to the family pensioners under a separate scheme of things. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. In the result, this appeal of the Administration is allowed. No costs. Consequently, WAMP.No.101 of 2007 is closed.