JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3. 2. All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.573 of 2017 [Nikhil Ch. Bhattacharjee vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.574 of 2017 [Amiya Bhusan Sinha vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.575 of 2017 [Satya Ranjan Datta vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.586 of 2017 [Shimanti Deb vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.587 of 2017 [Prabhat Ranjan Bhattacharjee vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.589 of 2017 [Tapati Goswami Bhattacharjee vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.590 of 2017 [Sudip Nath vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.591 of 2017 [Tapasi Roy Dey vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch one solitary question wades through all the writ petitions and this court has been urged for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the respondents No.2 & 3, to include the petitioners in the scheme, called New Group Superannuation Accumulation Scheme [NGSCA in short] under ‘Defined Benefit Scheme’ of Life Insurance Corporation of India, the LICI in short, in order to provide the retirement benefits to the petitioners under the same scheme. The petitioners have been excluded from the said scheme as they retired from the respective services from the Tripura Rehabilitation Plantation Corporation Ltd. [the TRPC in short] before introduction of the said scheme. 3. Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have retired from the respective services on diverse dates but all the petitioners have retired before 19.09.2015 when in the 117th Meeting of the Board of Governors of TRPC Ltd. the said NGSCA scheme under the Defined Benefits Scheme for the employees of TRPC Ltd. was adopted. The petitioners have clearly admitted that a ‘deed of agreement’ for NGSCA scheme under the Defined Benefits Scheme has been executed between the LICI and TRPC Ltd. By the notification dated 19.09.2015, Annexure-5 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.573 of 2017, it has been provided that the claim for pension for the existing employees and the future employees of the TRPC Ltd. will be settled under NGSCA scheme within the Defined Benefits Scheme. It has been also clearly adverted that the admissible pension will be 50% of the basic pay on the date of retirement/death/exit from service and corpus fund will be defined accordingly. It has been further provided in the said notification that all the officers and employees of the TRPC Ltd. will be covered by the said scheme. 100% family pension will be provided to the spouse. The scheme will be introduced with initial premium of Rs.5.0 crore only. In the said notification, it has been provided that the scheme will be applicable only to the existing regular employees as well as who will be recruited as regular employees in future. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has strenuously argued that the exclusion of the petitioners by setting up a cut-off date i.e. 19.09.2015 is discriminatory. The petitioners have been discriminated by forming a separate class and the formation of such class is absolutely unintelligible and further the setting up of the cut off date takes away valuable right of the petitioners to derive the benefit from the said pension scheme. According to Mr. Nath, learned counsel setting up of the cut off date or the formation of class is absolutely oppressive, unfair, arbitrary and unsustainable in view of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, Mr. Nath, learned counsel has referred a celebrated decision of the apex court in D.S. Nakara and Ors. vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 , where the apex court in Para-9 of the said judgment has observed that : “9. Is this class of pensioners further divisible for the purpose of 'entitlement' and 'payment' of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired after that date? If date of retirement can be accepted as a valid criterion for classification on retirement each individual Government servant would form a class by himself because the date of retirement of each is correlated to his birth date and on attaining a certain age he had to retire. It is only after the recommendations of the third Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Government of India that the retirement dates have been specified to be 12 in number being last day of each month in which the birth date of the individual Government servant happens to fail. It is only after the recommendations of the third Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Government of India that the retirement dates have been specified to be 12 in number being last day of each month in which the birth date of the individual Government servant happens to fail. In other words, all Government servants who retire correlated to birth date on attaining the age of superannuation in a given month shall not retire on that date but shall retire on the last day of the month. Now, if date of retirement is a valid criterion of classification, those who retire at the end of every month shall form a class by themselves. This is too microscopic a classification to be upheld for any valid purpose. It is permissible or is it violative of Art. 14?” This decision unfortunately does not support the plea of the petitioners for two reasons. Firstly, this is not a regular pension scheme which is fully funded by the TRPC Ltd. and as such, the issue of cut off dates is absolutely irrelevant, even the petitioners have admitted that it is a pension fund managed by the LICI on the basis of the initial premium of Rs.5.0 crore and the periodical premium will also be given by the Corporation. In such case, the persons who have already retired cannot be included in terms of the policy conditions. For this purpose, a trust has been created by the TRPC Ltd. It is clear from the said declaration that the said trust which was formed on 22.09.2015 shall enter into the scheme of insurance with the LICI and the premium payable, therefore, shall be provided by the contributions, to be made by the employer, or otherwise. The petitioners have also produced the trust deed for inspection by this court. This court is constrained to say that it does not support the plea as raised by the petitioners. From the agreement entered between the trustees of the TRPC Ltd. and the LICI, it is apparent that the employee whose age is not less than 18 years and not more than 60 years shall be eligible to participate in the said scheme. None of the petitioners has fallen within the said age group and as such, by virtue of the said scheme for pension, the petitioners cannot be its member. None of the petitioners has fallen within the said age group and as such, by virtue of the said scheme for pension, the petitioners cannot be its member. Clause 2 of the said agreement has dealt with the said aspect of the non-contributory pension scheme. ‘Non-contributory’ means no contribution would be required from the employees concerned and the contribution will be made only by the employer. According to the said scheme, as agreed between two stakeholders that certain amount of the salary which will not be, at any context, more than 25% may be the contribution of the employer. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has submitted that formation of the based on the said cut-off date is grossly arbitrary and cannot sustain. 4. From the other side, Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 have submitted in one voice that the said pension scheme is based on payment of the premium periodically by considering various factors including the salary quotient and the age range. It has been clearly stipulated that only the regular employees who are in service and who will join the service as the regular employee can be made part of the said scheme. It will be paid as the pension to one individual employee. For obvious reasons, such scheme cannot be made in retrospect and hence, the claim of the petitioners is frivolous. 5. Having appreciated the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the considered view since the petitioners had retired from the service much before 19.09.2015 when the first notification for the pension scheme was issued by the TRPC Ltd. they cannot be made the member of the said pension scheme and as such, they cannot derive any benefit or yield from that pension scheme. Thus, these writ petitions being devoid of merit stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.