JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Government advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The fact of the case is that the Government of India revised the pay and allowances of its employees' w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and the said Revision of Pay (‘ROP’) is known as Sixth Central Pay Revision. The Government of Mizoram also decided to follow the said Central Sixth Pay Revision for its employees for its implementation the State Government in the Finance Department (Pay Research Unit) vide No. G.12017/2/2008-FIN (PRU)/A dated 6.8.2010 issued a Notification in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 read with article 162 of the Constitution of India and thereby framed the Mizoram (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010. The State Government brought into said 2010 Rules, in to the force w.e.f. 1st day of January, 2006 with the observation that the pay under the said 2010 Rules shall be fixed notionally w.e.f. 1.1.2006 whereas the actual monetary benefits shall be paid w.e.f. 1.1.2009 only, clarifying that the arrears of pay and allowances from 1.1.2009 to 31.7.2010 shall be impounded into the GPF accounts of the employees in Groups ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ categories and regarding Group ‘D’ employees including the employees retiring within three months from the date of issue of the said Notification (dated 6.8.2010) and those employees not eligible to subscribed to GPF shall be paid in cash. 3. Subsequent to that, the Finance Department (APF Branch) of the State vide No. G.17011/4/2010-F.APF/54 dated 27.10.2010 issued an Office Memorandum (O.M., in short) introducing Revised Pension Scheme for post-1.1.2006 Retirees. The Government of Mizoram in the Finance Department in the name of implementing the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010, by the said O.M. dated 27.10.2010, introduced revisions and modifications in the Rules regulating Pension, Retirement/Death/Services/Gratuity commutation of Pension/Family Pension/Disability Pension/Ex-Gratia lump-sum compensation under the Central Civil Services (CCS) (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Commutation of Pension under CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and also CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 observing that the said O.M. dated 27.10.2010 shall apply to the Mizoram Government Employees governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 4. 4. In the said O.M. dated 27.10.2010, the State Government in the Finance Department at Clauses 5.1 to 5.7 specified about Pension and amongst others, its provisions reads as follows- Pension 5.1 A Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 before completing qualifying service of ten years shall not be entitled to pension but he shall continue to be entitled to service gratuity in terms of rule 49(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 5.2 Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service shall be dispensed with. Once a Government servant has rendered the minimum qualifying service of twenty years, pension shall be paid at 50% of the emolument or average emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is more beneficial to him. 5.3 In cases where Government servant becomes entitled to pension on completion of qualifying service in accordance with rule 49(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Pension in those cases shall also be paid at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments. Whichever is more beneficial to the Government servant. 5.4 The revised provisions for calculation of pension in para 5.2 and para 5.3 above shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of this O.M. and shall be applicable to Government servants retiring on or after that date. The Government servants who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before the date of issue of this O.M. will continue to be governed by the Rules/orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect these orders. 5.5 The amount of pension shall be subject to a minimum of Rs. 3,500 and maximum upto 50% of highest pay in the Government (The highest pay in the Government is Rs. 90,000 since 1.1.2006). 5. Further by the said O.M. dated 27.10.2010, following are specified regarding Commutation of Pension, which are- Commutation of Pension: 9.1 A Government servant shall continue to be entitled to commute for a lump-sum payment upto 40% of his Pension. 90,000 since 1.1.2006). 5. Further by the said O.M. dated 27.10.2010, following are specified regarding Commutation of Pension, which are- Commutation of Pension: 9.1 A Government servant shall continue to be entitled to commute for a lump-sum payment upto 40% of his Pension. 9.2 The existing Table of Commutation Menu for Pension annex to the Central Civil Service (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 shall be substituted by new Table at Annexure I of the said O.M. 9.3 The revise Table of Commutation Value for Pension will be used for all commutation of Pension which become absolute after the date of issue of the said O.M. In the case of those Pensioners, whose Commutation of Pension become absolute after 1.1.2009 on or before 31.12.2008, their commutations did not be revised. In the case of those Pensioners, in whose case Commutation of Pension become absolute on or after 1.1.2009, but before the issue of the said O.M. (dated 27.10.2010), the pre-revised Table of Commutation Menu for Pension will be used for payment of Commutation of Pension based on Pre-Revised Pay/Pension. Those Pensioners who retired on or after 1.1.2009 shall have an option to commute the amount of Pension that has become additionally commutable on account of retrospective Revision of Pay/Pension. On exercising such an option by the Pensioner, the revised Table of Commutation Value for Pension will be used for the commutation on account of retrospective Revision of Pay/Pension. In all cases where the date of retirement/Commutation of Pension is on or after the date of issue of this O.M. (dated 27.10.2010), the revised Table of Commutation Value for Pension will be used for commutation of entire Pension. 9.4 Provisions of Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 shall stand modified in accordance with paras 9.2 and 9.3 above. 6. As such by the said O.M. dated 27.10.2016, the State respondents have made two distinct and different groups of retirees from Government service so as to give them different pensionery benefits under the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010, (i) those State Government employees who have retired between 1.1.2006 and 27.10.2010, i.e., the date of issuance of the said O.M., and (ii) those State Government employees who have retired after the issuance of the said O.M. 27.10.2010. 7. The petitioners herein were all State Government employees and now they are retired from service. 7. The petitioners herein were all State Government employees and now they are retired from service. The petitioner No. 1 retired from service on 31.5.2010, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 retired from service on 31.3.2009, petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 retired from service on 30.9.2010, petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 retired from service on 31.3.2010, petitioner No. 8 retired from service on 31.10.2009, petitioner No. 9 retired from service on 31.4.2010, petitioner Nos. 10 and 11 retired from service on 28.2.2010, petitioner No. 12 retired from service on 31.7.2010, petitioner No. 13 retired from service on 28.2.2009, petitioner No. 14 retired from service on 31.12.2009, petitioner No. 15 retired from service on 31.8.2010, petitioner No. 16 retired from service on 31.1.2010, petitioner No. 17 retired from service on 24.2.2010, petitioner No. 18 retired from service on 31.8.2009, petitioner No. 19 retired from service on 31.12.2008, petitioner No. 20 retired from service on 30.4.2010, petitioner No. 21 retired from service on 30.11.2009 and petitioner No. 22 retired from service on 31.3.2010. 8. Though by the Notification dated 6.8.2010, the Government of Mizoram by way of a statutory Rule made under article 309 read with article 162 of the Constitution brought into force the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010 enhancing the scale of pay of its employees, giving notional benefit w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and actual monetary benefit from 1.1.2009; but the State Government by its said O.M. dated 27.10.2010 denied the revised and enhanced pensionery benefits in the enhanced scale of pay to those State Government employees, who have retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010, The petitioners, who have retired from the State Government service between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010 being aggrieved with the such deprivation of actual monetary benefit with regard to their pension have preferred his writ petition for setting aside the said O.M. dated 27.10.2010. 9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that though in terms of the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010 all the State Government employees received actual monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2009 but because of said O.M. dated 27.10.2010, the State respondents have denied the revised pensionery benefits to its employees who have retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010, whereas in terms of said Revision of Pay Rules, 2010 and the O.M. dated 27.10.2010, the State respondents allowed enhanced pensionery benefits to its employees who have retired after 27.10.2010. It is stated by the petitioners that such action of the State respondents amounts to discrimination, which is in violation of the provisions guaranteed under articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. 10. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010 is a statutory Rule made under the provisions of article 309 read with article 162 of the Constitution; therefore, by the impugned Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, the State respondents cannot override the provisions of said 2010 Rules and also the provisions of the statutory Rules like Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. 11. During the course of argument, on instruction, Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos. 18,19 and 21 are not pressing this writ petition, since the petitioner Nos. 18 and 21 have completed the total qualifying service of 33 years on the date of their retirement, i.e., on 31.8.2009 and 30.11.2009 respectively and the petitioner No. 19 had retired from service on 31.12.2008 (prior to 1.1.2009). 12. It is submitted that all the petitioners, except the petitioner No. 19, in terms of the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010, received the revised and enhanced scale of pay during their tenure in service up to the date of their retirement, but they are arbitrarily deprived and denied the revised enhanced payment of Pension in terms of said O.M. 27.10.2010 as they retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010. Petitioners also submitted that the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010 does not have the legal sanctity and the same cannot override the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010. 13. Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010 is in violation of the Constitutional provision and is arbitrary, as such, the same should be set aside and quashed and further prayed that the petitioners should be paid the enhanced revised pensions in terms of the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010, as given to the State Government employees who have retired after 27.10.2010. 14. In support of his argument, Mr. 14. In support of his argument, Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgments in the cases of Union of India v. Somasundaram Viswanath, (1989) 1 SCC 175 , State of M.P. v. G.S. Dali and Flour Mills, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 150, DDA v. Joginder S. Monga, (2004) 2 SCC 297 , Union of India v. Central Electrical & Mechanical Engg. Service (Ce & Mes) Group ‘A’ (Direct Recruits) Assn., CPWD, (2008) 1 SCC 354 , D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 , Indian Ex-Services Leaguev. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 104 , U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630 and Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt, of India, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 709 . 15. The State respondents have contested the matter by filing its affidavit. 16. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Government advocate from the affidavits of the State respondents submitted that on the basis of Revision of Pay of the Central Sixth Pay Revision, vide Notification dated 6.8.2010 the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010 have been implemented in the State, by which the actual monetary benefits have been given w.e.f. 1.1.2009. On behalf of the respondents it is also submitted that the State Government has not made any adoption of the Central Sixth Pay Revision but only made an adaptation. The State respondents also submitted that though the Government of Mizoram adopted the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 but it did not adapt the O.M. of the Government of India issued on 2.9.2008 and the State Government by the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010 have adapted the said O.M. dated 2.9.2008 of the Government of India with certain modifications for the Pensioners of the State. 17. Mr. 17. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Government advocate from the affidavits of the State respondents further submitted that the provisions of rule 49(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1972 had been modified due to financial constraints faced by the State Government at that time and as such, while issuing the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010 at clause 5.4 of the said O.M. dated 27.10.2010, it had been specified that those Government servant retiring between 1.1.2006 and 27.10.2010, their pension shall be calculated subject to pro rata basis of 50% of the emoluments which is further calculated on the qualifying service divided by 33 (full pension) as governed by the Rules/Orders which were in force immediately before coming into effect of the orders of 5th Pay Commission. It is further submitted by the respondents that the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010 had been issued adopting the Government of India's O.M. dated 2.9.2008 with modifications which governs post-1.1.2006 pensioners. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte also submitted that vide Notification dated 15.3.2013 in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the article 309 read with article 162 of the Constitution, the title of the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010 has been changed to Sixth Central Revision of Pay (as modified and extended to the employees under the Government of Mizoram) Rules, 2010. 18. The State respondent also submitted that the State Government has the authority to make rules as pensions to its employees are payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the State that falls under the State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 19. The State respondents also submitted that though CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is framed under article 309 of the Constitution, it is originally applicable for Central Government Servant only; but the Government of Mizoram can adapt the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with modification for its employees as pension to its employees falls under the State Government. 20. The State respondents also relied on the decision of Sadhan Ranjan Ckoudhury v. State of Mizoram as well as Mizoram Pensioners Associationv. the State of Mizoram in which this court dismissed those Writ Petitions and passed orders in favour of State of Mizoram regarding such pensionery benefits under 5th Revision of Pay Rules of the State, wherein financial benefits to the retired employees of the Government of Mizoram were given from a specific date. 21. the State of Mizoram in which this court dismissed those Writ Petitions and passed orders in favour of State of Mizoram regarding such pensionery benefits under 5th Revision of Pay Rules of the State, wherein financial benefits to the retired employees of the Government of Mizoram were given from a specific date. 21. Considered the arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioners and the State respondents and also the judgments placed on their support. 22. It is seen that in the present case, the State Government in terms of the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010 and the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010 gave the revised and enhanced pensionery benefits to the retired employees of the State who retired after 27.10.2010. It is also seen that by the said O.M. dated 27.10.2010, the State respondents have curved out another set/group of retired employees of the State, who retired from service between 1.1.2006 to 27.10.2010 stating the reason that this group of retired persons are not entitled to revised enhance pension due to financial crunch in the State. In the present case, the petitioners, excepting the petitioner No. 19, though retired on various dates between March 2009 and September 2010, before issuance of the impugned O.M. on 27.10.2010; but since 1.1.2009 they were paid revised and enhanced Scale of Pay and allowances till their date of retirement as per said Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010, whereas they have been denied the benefits of revised pensionery benefits, because of the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010. 23. It is also seen that at the same time the State Government have given such revised pensionery benefits to those who have retired from Government service after 27.10.2010 and this reflects that the State of Mizoram did not have any financial constrains after 27.10.2010 and in such state of affairs, the State Government could have given the revised pensionery benefits to the petitioners and those Government employees of the State who have retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010, by paying them in arrears. 24. 24. It is to be noted that the State Government in the Finance Department vide Notification dated 6.8.2010 brought into force the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010 w.e.f. 1.1.2006, giving actual monetary benefits from 1.1.2009 exercising the powers conferred under article 309 read with article 162 of the Constitution of India, whereas, the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010 have been issued by the State respondents without amending the statutory Rules, which is mere an executive instructions. 25. Though the State respondents submitted that the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010 have been issued after being approved by the Council of Ministers and it has the legal sanctity; but it is clear that the State respondents have issued the said O.M. without amending the statutory Rule, like the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010; Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. 26. In the case of Union of India v. Somasundaram Viswanath, (1989) 1 SCC 175 , the hon'ble Supreme Court have held that- “If there is a conflict between the executive instructions and the rules made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, the rules made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India prevail, and if there is a conflict between the rules made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India and the law made by the appropriate Legislature the law made by the appropriate Legislature prevails.” 27. A three-judge Bench of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. G.S. Dali & Flour Mills, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 150, have held that- “Executive instructions can supplement a statute or cover areas to which the statute does not extend. But they cannot run contrary to statutory provisions or whittle down their effect.” 28. In the case of DDA v. Joginder S. Monga, (2004) 2 SCC 297 , the hon'ble Supreme Court have held that- “It is not a case where a conflict has arisen between a statute or a statutory rule on the one hand and an executive instruction, on the other. Only in a case where a conflict arises between a statute and a executive instruction, indisputably, the former will prevail over the latter. The lessor under the deed of lease is to fix the market value. It could do it area-wise or plot-wise. Only in a case where a conflict arises between a statute and a executive instruction, indisputably, the former will prevail over the latter. The lessor under the deed of lease is to fix the market value. It could do it area-wise or plot-wise. Once it does it area-wise which being final and binding, it cannot resile there from at a later stage and take a stand that in a particular case it will fix the market value on the basis of the price disclosed in the agreement of sale.” 29. The Constitution Bench of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 have held that- “The power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Article 309 of the Constitution gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedures which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment, etc. If rules have been made under article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules. The State is meant to be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this Act may not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have been sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various departments and for filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure. Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law governing employment. It is recognized that no government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law governing employment. It is recognized that no government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. This is because, following any other course could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive the security of tenure and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the constitutional scheme. It may even amount to negating the accepted service jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so framed.” 30. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 491 , have held that- “A circular letter is not a statutory instrument. Even a scheme issued under article 162 of the Constitution would not be rate over statutory rules. Policy decision adopted by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 162 of its Constitution is in violation of the statutory Rules or Rules framed under article 309 of the Constitution and such policy decision of the State would be illegal and without jurisdiction.” 31. As the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010 of the Government of Mizoram in the Finance Department have been issued in violation of the statutory Rules framed under article 309 of the Constitution, without amending those Rules like the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010; the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, the same is in conflict with the provisions of those statutory Rules and being in violation of the Constitutional provisions as discussed above; therefore, the said O.M. dated 27.10.2010 cannot be allowed to over ride the provisions made in the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010; the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972; the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. As such, the impugned Office Memorandum and its provisions regarding nongranting of revised and enhanced pension to the Government employees who have retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010, the day of issuance of said Office Memorandum, being bad in law, cannot be allowed to be continued and is liable to be set aside and quashed. 32. As such, the impugned Office Memorandum and its provisions regarding nongranting of revised and enhanced pension to the Government employees who have retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010, the day of issuance of said Office Memorandum, being bad in law, cannot be allowed to be continued and is liable to be set aside and quashed. 32. In a matter regarding 5th Pay Commission and its implementation, the Government of Mizoram vide Notification dated 9.7.1999 brought into force the Mizoram Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, a rule under article 309 of the Constitution, whereby the Government provided that revised scale of pay shall be effective from 1st day of January, 1996 for the purpose of notional fixation of pay and pensionery 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 said Rule applies. Some Government employees of Mizoram superannuated in the year 1996 approached this court with regard to the said decision of the State Government issued vide Notification dated 9.7.1999 by filing writ petitions claiming the revised pensionery benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and submitted that the said decision of the Government regarding giving of actual monetary benefits only w.e.f. 1.5.1999 is discriminatory in nature to the State Government employees retiring on and after 1.1.1996 to 30.4.1999 and is in violation of the constitutional provisions. A Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Mizoram v. Mizoram Pensioner's Association and Sri Sadhan Ranjan Choudhury, (2011) 2 GLR 313 have held that as the State Government decided to provide financial benefits w.e.f. 1.5.1999 covering its existing and retired employees, no different treatment have shown to have been meted with these two classes of employees, nor any discriminatory treatment could be shown between the said two classes in providing monetary benefit w.e.f. 01.5.1999. But the fact of those two case are not similar to the present matter and as such the said decision of Mizoram Pensioner's Association and Sri Sadhan Ranjan Choudhury (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 33. But the fact of those two case are not similar to the present matter and as such the said decision of Mizoram Pensioner's Association and Sri Sadhan Ranjan Choudhury (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 33. In the present case the State respondents by implementing the Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010, with regard to the State Government employees, the revised scale of pay and allowances was made effective from 1st day of January, 2006 for the purpose of notional fixation of pay and pensionery benefits, but the actual monetary benefits were made available to such employees w.e.f. 1st day of January, 2009. But by the impugned Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010, the State Government have made two classes of retired Government employees, i.e., pensioners of the State - One those who have retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010 and the other, those who have retired after 27.10.2010, i.e., after the date of issuance of the impugned O.M. by the State respondents. But no materials have been placed before the court by the State respondents to justify making such classification except the plea of financial crunch in the State. This act of the State respondents is a clear discrimination amongst the pensioners of the State. 34. The State respondents by the said Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010 disbursed the revised and enhanced scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.2009 to all of its employees; however, at the same time, without any valid reasons, just making the plea of financial crunch, deprived a hand full of few retired State Government employees from the benefit of revised and enhanced pensionery benefits to those who retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010, although entitled as per said Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010. In the present case also, the petitioners received their revised enhanced scale of pay and allowances as per the said 2010 (ROP) Rules; but after their retirement, which is prior to 27.10.2010, they were deprived from the benefit of revised and enhanced pensionery benefits because of the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010. 35. In the case of All India judges Assn. In the present case also, the petitioners received their revised enhanced scale of pay and allowances as per the said 2010 (ROP) Rules; but after their retirement, which is prior to 27.10.2010, they were deprived from the benefit of revised and enhanced pensionery benefits because of the impugned O.M. dated 27.10.2010. 35. In the case of All India judges Assn. v. Union of India, (2006) 12 SCC 187 regarding compliance of payment of revised and enhanced pensionery benefits, a plea was taken by the State of Kerala stating that there is financial crunch in the State and the possibility of similar demand being raised by the employees of other departments and the hon'ble Supreme Court rejected both of these pleas holding it to have no substance and directed the State of Kerala to make full compliance directing it to issue notification in that regard and further directed the said State to file affidavit of compliance of the said direction of the hon'ble Supreme Court within a specific date fixed by the hon'ble Supreme Court. 36. It is settled by the hon'ble Supreme Court that - pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace and is also not a gratuity payment, but it is a payment for past service rendered and a social welfare measure to render socio-economic justice to those employees who in the prime time of their life toiled for the employer on an assurance that they would not be left in the lurch in their old age. 37. The hon'ble Apex Court have also settled that - the pensioners for the purpose of pensionery benefits, form a homogeneous class and it cannot be arbitrarily divided by fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to the purpose of pension, like granting benefits to only those who have retired subsequent to a particular date, simultaneously denying the same to those who have retired prior to the said date and such actions are held to be discriminatory and that any arbitrary and discriminatory action in absence of any acceptable or a persuasive reasons for such division, discrimination, etc., violates the guarantee enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution. 38. In a similar case another Single Bench of this court in the case of All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers and Employees Committee v. State of Assam, 2016 (4) GLT 85 have dealt the issue at large. 39. 38. In a similar case another Single Bench of this court in the case of All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers and Employees Committee v. State of Assam, 2016 (4) GLT 85 have dealt the issue at large. 39. In the present case by the aforesaid 2010 Rules, the State respondents in one side paid the revised and enhanced scale of pay and allowances to its employees w.e.f. 1.1.2009, whereas, on the other hand, deprived its employees from revised and enhanced retirement benefits to those, who have retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010, that too, on the ground of financial constraints in the State, but at the same time granted the enhanced and revised pensionery benefits to its employees who have retired after 27.10.2010. By such action the State respondents have tried to approbate and re-probate at the same time and it cannot blow hot and cold at the same breath. The said action of the State respondents is in clear violation of the article 14 of the Constitution, where the pensioners of the State are treated differently without any reasonable and justifiable grounds. 40. For the reasons above the decision of the State respondents by the impugned Office Memorandum dated 27.10.2010 of giving their monthly salaries as per the said Mizoram (ROP) Rules, 2010 in the revised and enhanced scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.2009, but not giving the revised and enhanced retirement benefit to the retired Government employees of the State retiring between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010, whereas giving such revised and enhanced retirement benefit to its employees retiring after 27.10.2010 apparently amounts to discrimination and is accordingly set aside and quashed. 41. As such, petitioners who are retired employees of the Government of Mizoram, retired between 1.1.2009 and 27.10.2010 shall be paid similar pensionery benefits by the State respondents as provided to those employees of the Government Mizoram, who have retired after 27.10.2010 as prescribed by the impugned Office Memorandum No. G.17011/4/2010-F.APF/54 dated 27.10.2010 issued by the Government of Mizoram in the Finance Department (APF), from their date of retirement. 42. The State respondents shall now pay the arrear pension to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 17, 20 and 22, as entitled by them, within a period of six months from today, on or before 31st March, 2018 without fail. 43. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands allowed.