JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. The petitioner has claimed pension at the rate of Rs. 23,500 with effect from October 1, 2001 in place and stead of Rs. 21,546 that he is receiving and consequential benefits. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the University is bound by the circular dated May 3, 2015/May 6, 2015 issued by the University Grants Commission. Such circular has delinked qualifying period of service from 32 years and has reduced it to 20 years. The petitioner having retired on September 30, 2001, and having rendered full period of service under such circular is entitled to pension at the full amount. Denial of full pension by the University is wrong. Consequently, the decision dated October 30, 2014 taken by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department cannot be sustained. He has relied upon (Union of India v. S.R. Dhingra & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 229 ) (D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 ), (T.S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to Government of India, (1993) 2 SCC 174 ), (Dhan Raj & Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 30 ), (Union of India & Anr. v. SPS Vains (Retd.) & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 125 ) and (V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr., (1998) 8 SCC 30 ) in support of his contentions. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the University has submitted that, the petitioner had retired on September 13, 1996. Subsequent to his retirement, the petitioner was granted re-employment. The term of re-employment expired on September 20, 2001. He has referred to the re-employment provisions of the University and submitted that, the petitioner was re-employed in terms of such provisions. He has submitted that, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. 4. This is the second writ petition at the behest of the writ petitioner. His first writ petition was disposed of by an order dated August 29, 2014. By such order, the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department was directed to hear and dispose of the claim of the petitioner for pension at the rate of Rs. 23,500/-. 5. By an order dated October 30, 2014, Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, after considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner including the Government Order no. By such order, the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department was directed to hear and dispose of the claim of the petitioner for pension at the rate of Rs. 23,500/-. 5. By an order dated October 30, 2014, Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, after considering the submission made on behalf of the petitioner including the Government Order no. 464 Edn (V) dated August 13, 2010 has disallowed the claim of the petitioner. It has held as follows:- "The submission of the petitioner was taken into consideration by the undersigned. On examination of this case, it is evident that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.09.1996. At that point of time this Department's Order No. 85-Edn (U) dated 31.01.2000 was in force and entitlement of pension for a person retiring prior to 31.01.2000 was guided by this Order. The order specifies at Clause 9 of Annexure I as follows:- "The rate of pension will be 50% of the last pay drawn including stagnation increments for 33 years of qualifying service or more. When the qualifying service is less than 33 years, the pension will be pro-rata less". This is the basic principles of calculating pension as prevailed. To get 50% of the last pay drawn (full pension) a person had to render 33 years continuous service. A person who had rendered less service was entitled to pension on pro-rata basis. Since the petitioner had rendered 30 years service, his pension was calculated on pro-rata basis. The State Government has, thereafter, reduced the length of qualifying service to 20 years in place of 33 years and accordingly, some provisions of earlier order have been revised as contained in the Order No. 464-Edn (U) dated 13.08.2010. Since the petitioner had rendered 30 years service, his pension was calculated on pro-rata basis. The State Government has, thereafter, reduced the length of qualifying service to 20 years in place of 33 years and accordingly, some provisions of earlier order have been revised as contained in the Order No. 464-Edn (U) dated 13.08.2010. It deserved mention that although the period of qualifying service has been reduced to 20 years, the method of calculation of basic pension has remained the same which is reproduced hereunder: The actual pension for the person who has rendered qualifying service of 33 years, now 20 years (after 2006) would be:- (a) Basic pension on retirement on superannuation @ 50% of basic pay- (b) Dearness pension @ 50% of the basic pension- (c) Dearness relief- (d) Fitment weight age @ 40% of the basic pension- Under the revised order No. 464-Edn (U) dated 13.08.2010, the qualifying service for full pension was reduced to 20 years but the provision of receiving pro-rate pension for a person rendering service for less than 20 years has not been waived. Order no. 464-Edn (U) dated 13.08.2010 is actually a continuation order of the earlier order No. 85-Edn (U) dated 31.01.2000. The later order has itself made clear that "the Scheme together with those provisions of the old Scheme which have not been amended by the modified old Scheme in the subsequent paragraphs shall apply to teachers and officers and the non-teaching employees of the State-aided Universities". This means the earlier Scheme vide no. 85-Edn (U) dated 31.01.2000 continues to apply until it is modified. This means the earlier Scheme vide no. 85-Edn (U) dated 31.01.2000 continues to apply until it is modified. In the new Scheme (vide No. 464-Edn(U) dated 13.08.2010) under paragraph 5 of Annexure III, a safeguard has been given to the pre-2006 pensioner (who have retired from service in between 2000 to 2006, since west Bengal State-aided Universities DCRB Scheme, 1999 had been introduced w.e.f. 30.01.2000) as follows:- "The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the Grade pay in the revised pay structure corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired." This provision has been made to protect the interest of those pensioners whose monthly pension falls less than 50% of the pay in the Pay Band plus the Grade pay in the revised pay structure. This Clause is applicable to those pensioners who have rendered 33 years service (qualifying service for full pension) and whose revised pension falls below 50% of the pay in the Pay Band plus the Grade pay in the revised pay structure. But this clause must be read with clause of calculating pension on pro-rata basis for those pensioners rendered less than 33 years of service. The principle of calculating pensionable service on pro-rata basis (less than 20 years qualifying service) is continued in the revised Scheme as introduced by the Finance Department vide their Memo No. 449-F (Pen) dated 28.05.2010, on the strength of which, this Department issued order no. 464-Edn (U) dated 13.08.2010. Paragraph 5 of Annexure III of Order No. 464- Edn (U) dated 13.08.2010 which was relied upon by the petitioner is actually applicable to those pensioners who have rendered qualifying service of 33 years, and obviously cannot be applied to the petitioner who had rendered only 30 years service. Hence, this clause is not applicable to the petitioner's case. The pension being received by the Petitioner is correct and has been fixed as per the existing rules and orders of the State Government and requires no further modification or revision. Hence, this clause is not applicable to the petitioner's case. The pension being received by the Petitioner is correct and has been fixed as per the existing rules and orders of the State Government and requires no further modification or revision. Considering all the above, it is decided that the provision of paragraph 5 of Annexure-III of the Order No. 464- Edn (U) dated 13.08.2010 is not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to get pension on pro-rata basis." 6. S.R. Dhingra & Ors. (supra) has held that, an employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new pension/retirement scheme or for the discontinuance of any existing scheme. It has held that, what is discriminatory is the introduction of a benefit retrospectively or prospectively fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogenous class of pensioners into two groups and subjecting them to different treatment. D.S. Nakara & Ors. (supra) has held that, where the classification is arbitrary, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. T.S. Thiruvengadam (supra) has also dealt with reasonable classification amongst pensioners. Dhan Raj & Ors. (supra) and SPS Vains (Retd.) & Ors. (supra) have dealt with disparity of pension amongst the same rank. The facts scenario obtaining in the present case are different than the authorities cited on behalf of the petitioner. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner did not have 33 years of qualifying service to obtain full pension in terms of the earlier scheme. He was granted pro-rata pension. The notification that the petitioner relies upon is effective from January 1, 2006. The petitioner retired on September 30, 1996. The employment granted to the petitioner subsequent to September 30, 1996 cannot be construed to be an extension of the original appointment for the purpose of calculation of service period to receive pensionary benefit. The employment granted subsequent to September 30, 1996 is a fresh appointment and should be considered as such. 7. There is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. W.P. No. 29439(W) of 2016 is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment and order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.