ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 1/1/2001 (Annex.3), whereby, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Accounts) has come to a conclusion that the superannuation pension of Rs. 506/- p.m. is correct as per the Accounting Mannual of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 ('the Scheme, 1995') and seeking a further direction that the petitioner is entitled to a monthly pension of Rs. 926/- p.m. w.e.f. 1/12/1997 or such further increased amount in terms of Scheme of 1995 along with arrears and interest. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Stores Officer with M/s. Metallizing Equipment Company on 27/7/1979 and attained the age of 58 years on 1/12/1997. 3. While in service, the petitioner was covered under the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act') and pension Scheme thereunder. By order dated 9/5/1998, the petitioner was allowed pension of Rs. 337/- p.m. (Annex.6). 4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the quantum of monthly pension gave several representations for disclosure of the basis for arriving at the pension of Rs. 337/- p.m. and sought revision in terms of para 12 (5) (a & b) of the Scheme, 1995; when no action was taken by the respondent, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 790/99, which came to be decided on 7/8/1999 directing the respondent to decide the representation made by the petitioner within a period of six weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing and if the petitioner's claim was not accepted, a speaking and reasoned order be passed. Thereafter, by order dated 7/7/2000 (Annex.14) it was communicated to the petitioner that his grievance has been redressed and he would be entitled to monthly pension of Rs. 856/- p.m., however, the said order was revised by order dated 31/8/2000 (Annex.15) indicating that due to clerical mistake it was communicated to the petitioner that his pension has been revised to Rs. 856/- p.m. which in fact has been fixed at Rs. 506/- and was being released regularly. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed contempt petition being S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 174/2000. Where after, during the pendency of the contempt petition, order dated 1/1/2001 was passed rejecting the representation of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner was entitled to monthly pension of Rs. 506/- p.m. only. 506/- and was being released regularly. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed contempt petition being S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 174/2000. Where after, during the pendency of the contempt petition, order dated 1/1/2001 was passed rejecting the representation of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner was entitled to monthly pension of Rs. 506/- p.m. only. The contempt petition was dismissed keeping it open for the petitioner to assail the validity of the order dated 1/1/2001. 6. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 01/01/2001 (Annex.3), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have erred in fixing the pension of the petitioner at Rs. 506/- per month. With reference to the Scheme of 1995, para 12 (5) read with Table B of the Pension Scheme, it was submitted that in fact the petitioner was entitled to pension of Rs. 1288/- p.m. instead of Rs. 506/- per month as arrived by the respondents and, therefore, the order dated 1/1/2001 (Annex.3) deserves to be set aside. 8. Submissions were made with reference to definitions of 'Existing Member' & 'Pensionable Service' and sub-clause (b) of sub para (5) of para 12 of the Scheme, 1995 contending that the respondents were justified in calculating the pension by applying the factor of less than 3 as per Table B, whereas, factor of less than 20 should be applied by the respondents and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported order dated 1/1/2001. It was submitted that the respondent has correctly made the calculations, which is apparent from the enclosure to Annex.15. It was submitted that the submission made by the petitioner seeking use of factor meant for period of less that of 20 years is baseless in view of clause (c) to sub-clause (3) of para 12 of the Scheme, which provides that the factor given in Table B corresponding to the period between 16/11/1995 and date of attainment of age of 58 years would be used to arrive at past service pension payable and as the petitioner had retired on 1/12/1997, the period between 16/11/1995 and 1/11/1995, 02 years and 15 days was rightly calculated by applying multiplier of less than 3 years as per Table B and, therefore, the order impugned does call for any interference. 10. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The dates are in dispute, whereby, the date of birth of the petitioner is 1/12/1939, he joined the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 on 1/1/1980, retired on 1/12/1997 on attaining age of 58 years. 12. The relevant provision for arriving at the monthly member's pension is para 12 of the Scheme, 1995, the relevant provisions whereof read as under: "12. Monthly member's pensionable (1) A member shall be entitled to : ...... (2) In case of a new entrant the amount of monthly superannuation pension or retiring pension, as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following factors, namely: Monthly member's pension = Pensionable salary x Pensionable service/70 (3) In the case of an employee who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and who has attained the age of 48 years on 16-11-1995; Superannuation/retirement/short service pension shall be equal to the aggregate of: (a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of pensionable service rendered from 16th November, 1995 or Rs. 635/- per month, whichever is more; (b) past service pension benefit shall be as given below: The past service benefit payable on completion of 589 years of age on 16-11-1995. Years of past service Salary upto Rs. 2,500 p.m. Salary more than Rs. 2,500 p.m. (I) Up to 11 years 80 85 (ii) More than 11 years but up to 15 years 95 105 (iii) More than 15 years but less than 20 years 120 135 (iv) Beyond 20 years 150 170 Subject to a minimum of Rs. 800/- per month provided the past service is 24 years. If the aggregate service is less than 24 years, the pension and the benefits computed as above shall be reduced proportionately subject to a minimum of Rs. 450/- per month. (c) On completion of the age of 58 years after 16-11-1995, the benefit under column (2) or column (3) above, as the case may be, shall be multiplied by the factor given in Table B corresponding to the period between 16-11-1995/and/date of attainment of age 58 to arrive at past service pension payable; 4. ........ 5. 450/- per month. (c) On completion of the age of 58 years after 16-11-1995, the benefit under column (2) or column (3) above, as the case may be, shall be multiplied by the factor given in Table B corresponding to the period between 16-11-1995/and/date of attainment of age 58 to arrive at past service pension payable; 4. ........ 5. In the case of an employee who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and who attained the age of 53 years or more on 15th November, 1995, the superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of: (a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from 16th November, 1995 per month or Rs. 335/- per month, whichever is more. (b) past service benefits provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to the minimum of Rs. 500/- per month provided the past service is 24 years. Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of Rs. 265/- per month." 13. A bare look at the above provisions indicate that the petitioner would be governed by sub para (5), as he had attained the age of 53 years or more on 16/11/1995 and as such he was entitled to the superannuation/retirement pension as per clause (a) & (b) of sub para (5). As per clause (a), he was entitled to 'pension' as determined under sub paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from 16/11/1995 or Rs. 335/- p.m., which ever is more, as under sub paragraph (2), the petitioner was entitled to lesser amount, he is entitled to Rs. 335/- p.m. as the provision provides for higher amount to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. Under clause (b), the petitioner is also entitled to Past Service benefits provided in sub paragraph (3) and as the Past Service of the petitioner i.e. from 1/1/1980 to 16/11/1995 was less than 24 years, the pension payable and the Past Service benefit was required to be proportionately lesser but subject to minimum of Rs. 265/- p.m. 14. It would be noticed that the minimum of Rs. 265/- p.m. does relate to the amount of Past Service benefits as the provision provides that the 'pension payable and the Past Service benefits' should be minimum of Rs. 265/- p.m. 14. It would be noticed that the minimum of Rs. 265/- p.m. does relate to the amount of Past Service benefits as the provision provides that the 'pension payable and the Past Service benefits' should be minimum of Rs. 265/- p.m. 15. As per sub para (3) (c) quoted hereinbefore, as the petitioner had completed the age of 58 years after 16/11/1995, the benefit as indicated in the Table under sub clause (b) was required to be multiplied by the factor given in Table B corresponding to the period between 16/11/1995 and date of attaining the age of 58 years to arrive at 'Past Service Pension Payable'. As the period between 16/11/1995 and date of attaining the age of 58 years by the petitioner is 02 years and 15 days, the benefit under column (3), which is 135, is required to be multiplied by factor 1.269 and the amount arrived at i.e. 135 x 1.269=171 would be added to Rs. 335/-, which brings the monthly pension payable under sub para (5) of para 12 of the Scheme at Rs. 506/- p.m. The respondent in their reply has indicated the said amount at Rs. 506/- only and has further gave out the manner in which the same was enhanced on account of revaluation of funds and that pension was increased to Rs. 1000/- p.m. as the minimum amount w.e.f 1/10/2014, which amount is being paid to the petitioner. 16. In view of the above state of affairs & the provisions as indicated and the amount arrived at, the action of the respondent in determining the pension of the petitioner at Rs. 506/- p.m. w.e.f. the date of his retirement cannot be faulted. 17. A feeble attempt was made by counsel for the petitioner to submit that the provisions of clause (c) of sub para (3) of Para 12 is irrational as the same provides for the benefit of past service to be determined based on the period between 16/11/1995 and the date of attaining the age of 58 years. Besides the fact that no challenge to the said clause has been laid in the present writ petition, the provisions as contained in the Scheme without any apparent reason, which have withstood the scrutiny now over a period of 20 years, cannot be said to be irrational. 18. Besides the fact that no challenge to the said clause has been laid in the present writ petition, the provisions as contained in the Scheme without any apparent reason, which have withstood the scrutiny now over a period of 20 years, cannot be said to be irrational. 18. The attempt on the part of the petitioner to calculate the past service benefit under clause (b) of sub para (5) of para 12 based on the factor on account of time spent in service prior to 16/11/1995 i.e. taking the same as less than 21 years is in total distortion and ignorance of the plain language of said provision, which cannot be countenanced. 19. In view thereof, there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the same is therefore dismissed.