JUDGMENT : Irshad Ali, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an appeal, filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and order dated 23.08.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 45632 of 2006 (Rajkishore Prasad vs. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others) as well as for quashing the proviso to Clause 3(1) of the notification dated 08.09.2005. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the appellant joined in Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short 'LIC') on the post of Assistant in pursuance to the appointment order dated 19.08.1995 at Branch Office Rewa and was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 27.02.1997. The appellant sought permission from the department to appear in the Combined Subordinate Services Examination, 1998, conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad. No objection certificate was granted to the appellant vide letter dated 02.12.1999. 4. The appellant appeared in the examination and was declared successful in the written examination and thereafter he was called for interview and had been finally selected in the Combined Subordinate Services Examination, 1998. 5. The appellant, after selection in the aforesaid examination, tendered resignation on 04.08.2005 to the Branch Manager, C.B.O., IV Branch, L.I.C., Allahabad. The resignation tendered by the appellant was duly accepted and he was relieved from his duties on the same day i.e. 04.08.2005. Thereafter the appellant joined as Executive Officer in Nagar Palika Parishad, Ganj Dundwar, District Etah on 05.08.2005. 6. On 08th September, 2005 the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Centre Office, Mumbai issued instructions for implementation of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class-III & Class-IV Employees (Revision Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2005, whereby the scales of pay, Dearness allowance and other service conditions applicable to Class-III and IV employees of the Corporation were revised. The appellant-petitioner claimed the said revision of pay scale and other emoluments by a representation requesting therein that although he has resigned but he is entitled to get revision in pay scale and other benefits. The representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.11.2005. The appellant-petitioner claimed the said revision of pay scale and other emoluments by a representation requesting therein that although he has resigned but he is entitled to get revision in pay scale and other benefits. The representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.11.2005. Against the order of rejection, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 45632 of 2006, which has been dismissed by means of the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2006, whereby the claim of the petitioner for the grant of revision in pay scale has been rejected. 7. Assailing the said judgment learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he resigned from service on 04.08.2005 and joined in Nagar Panchayat as Executive Officer on 05.08.2005. In pursuance to the notification issued on 08.09.2005 the scale of existing employees of the L.I.C. has been revised w.e.f. 01.08.2002, thus he is also entitled to get the said benefit. 8. The appellant has challenged the said notification on the ground that it creates discrimination amongst the employees of the department in providing the revision in pay scale by fixing a cut of date for its applicability. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The learned Singh Judge has recorded cogent reasons that the notification itself takes notice of the fact that it is applicable in regard to the employees, who were in service on 05.09.2005 i.e. the date of its enforcement. On the said date appellant was not in service, thus he is not entitled to get the benefit of revision in pay scale in pursuance to the said notification. 11. The aforesaid reasoning of the learned Singh Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 12. We further hold that the notification fixing the cut of date in regard to the applicability of the said provision to make available revision in pay scale does not create any discrimination amongst the employees of the department. The cut of date, if any, fixed cannot be termed to be arbitrary on the ground that certain employees are not getting benefit of revision of pay scale. The cut of date, if any, fixed cannot be termed to be arbitrary on the ground that certain employees are not getting benefit of revision of pay scale. As and when any cut of date is fixed for providing certain benefits, some of the employees of the department will not get the said benefits due to non cover under the said date, it does not mean that discrimination is created amongst the employees of the department. Thus, the argument advanced on this point is ruled out and has no substance. 13. We are with full agreement of the findings recorded by the learned Singh Judge. The judgment and order dated 23.08.2006 does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. The special appeal assailing the said order lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.