JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. 1. Both these petitions are taken up together as common question is involved for grant of service benefits for the period prior to the date of resignation. 2. Both these petitions under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, have been directed against the refusal of respondents in paying compensation to the petitioners towards pay anomaly in respect of pay fixation of the petitioners, which the petitioners were entitled under office order dated 27.6.2007. 3. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 3631/2008 was originally appointed on the post of Assistant Chemist with effect from 19.11.1979. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Chemist in the year 1982 and senior chemist in the year 1987 and Deputy Superintending Chemist with effect from 1.1.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 7000-9600. The petitioner was finally promoted to the post of Superintending Chemist with effect from 1.1.1996 in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs. 7500-9600. The said pay-scale was revised to Rs. 17,500 - Rs. 22,300/with effect from 1.1.1997. 4. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 7090 of 2008 was originally appointed on the post of Chemist w.e.f. 9.2.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Chemist w.e.f. 1.1.1998. The petitioner was thereafter further promoted to the post of Deputy Superintending Chemist w.e.f. 1.1.1993 in the pay scale of 7000-9600. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Chemist w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-9900. The said pay-scale was revised to Rs. 17,500-22300 w.e.f. 1.1.1997 5. The executives of the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited holding the post at the level of E-2 to E-5 had a grievance that they were placed in the pay scales which were lower than their counter part of other public section units in the oil sector. This difference of pay scale between the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited and other PSU officers had led to serious resentment amongst the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited officers, and therefore, the Board of Directors in its 166th meeting held on 10.5.2007 had decided to resolve this anomaly between the pay scale, and accordingly passed an order dated 27.6.2007, wherein, the pay scale of employees were revised from 1.1.1997. It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have resigned from ONGC with effect from 6.2.2007 and their resignation was duly accepted by the Corporation. It is further their case that the benefit granted vide office order dated 27.6.2007 was denied to the petitioners on the ground that they have resigned from service with effect from 6.2.2007, and accordingly, such denial was against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as equals have been treated as unequal by the respondents. It is further the case of the petitioners that after denial of benefits as per order dated 27.6.2007, the petitioners made representations to the respondents, however, without any result and hence these petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that vide order dated 27.6.2007, all the employees of the Corporation required to be compensated by lumpsum differential compensation to be calculated as prescribed under para-3 from 1.1.2007, and such benefits were denied to the petitioners. It has been further submitted that such benefit has been denied to the petitioners only on the ground that they have resigned from their services from 2.6.2007. It has been argued that such denial amounts to sub-classifications amongst the equal as if the benefit has been granted to the persons who were serving on 1.1.2007, the same cannot be denied to the petitioner as they were also in service at the relevant time and have resigned only after that date i.e. with effect from 6.2.2007. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of (1) S. Seshachalam and others v. Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 72 and (2) Reserve Bank of India and Another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Another, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 461 . 7. On the other hand, while arguing on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel Mr. Mehta has contended that the benefits claimed by the petitioners have been rightly denied to them in view of the fact that they have resigned from their services. It has been argued that resignation by the petitioners itself amounts to a separate class, and accordingly, they were not entitled to the benefits as per order dated 27.6.2007. Mehta has contended that the benefits claimed by the petitioners have been rightly denied to them in view of the fact that they have resigned from their services. It has been argued that resignation by the petitioners itself amounts to a separate class, and accordingly, they were not entitled to the benefits as per order dated 27.6.2007. In support of his submissions, he has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India and Another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Another, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 461 . 8. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. Admittedly, all other employees of the Corporation similarly situated have been granted benefit of the order dated 27.6.2007 which has been denied to the petitioners. The only reason for denial of this benefit is that they have resigned from their services on 6.2.2007. The resignation by the petitioners after 1.1.2007 is meaningless as the benefit claimed by the petitioners pertain to the period prior to 1.1.2007, and also prior to the date of their resignation. The benefit which has been granted to the co-employees cannot be denied to the petitioners simply on the ground that they have resigned from services on 6.2.2007 when the period pertains prior to the date of the resignation. 9. Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that "Equality before law.- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification. The classification, however, must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive" but must be based on some real and substantial bearing, a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated differently. Article 14 does not apply. The classification, however, must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive" but must be based on some real and substantial bearing, a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated differently. Article 14 does not apply. Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons all of whom stand in the same relation to the privilege granted and between those on whom the privilege is conferred and the persons not so favoured, no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege. 10. Going through the classification as laid down by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, this is no doubt that unreasonable classification will amount to interfere with the fundamental rights granted to the citizen of India. While applying this principle to the present case, it can be seen that the petitioners along with other co-employees were in service on 1.1.2007. The benefits granted vide order dated 27.6.2007 pertains prior to the date of resignation by the petitioners. By no stretch of imagination, the benefit granted to other similarly situated employees can be denied to the petitioners on the ground that they have resigned after 1.1.2007 i.e. on 6.2.2007. The decisions in the case of Sansar Chand Atri v. State of Punjab and another (supra) and Reserve Bank of India and Another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Another(supra) are fully applicable to the facts of this case. In both these judgments, it has been held that classification within a class can only be held to be a valid classification unless it is based on some real and substantial grounds. 11. No such reasonable grounds have been mentioned in the present case while rejecting the benefits to the petitioners which has been granted to other co-employees. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Reserve Bank of India and Another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Another (supra), which has been relied upon by the petitioners. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Reserve Bank of India and Another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Another (supra), which has been relied upon by the petitioners. It could be seen that this judgment is not relevant to the facts of this case as it relates to the fixation of pension after voluntary retirement of a person. If a person voluntarily retires from service, he cannot claim the same pensionary benefits which could be available to other co-employees who have retired after superannuation. On the other hand, benefits claimed by the petitioners pertain to the period when they along with other co-employees were in service. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, both these petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute.