JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7418 of 2019. Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for State respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for newly impleaded opposite party no. 3. 2. By means of this contempt application filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 non-compliance of the order dated 24.05.2019 passed in Writ - A No. 61048 of 2016 is complained of. 3. A compliance affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 on 28.01.2020 annexing therewith the order dated 03.09.2019, whereby it is claimed that the pension of the applicant has come to be revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006, as per recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, and thus, it is claimed that the order of writ Court stood complied with in its letter and spirit. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar and having gone carefully through the order of writ Court, I find that the main issue before the writ Court was as to whether the applicant who belonged to the cadre of Personal Assistant and reached to the stage of Principal Private Secretary/ Head Private Secretary, though retired while working as Deputy Registrar on officiating basis only, could have been denied benefits of 6th pay commission for the purposes of revision in pension, as admissible to Principal Private Secretary/ Head Private Secretary (for short 'PPS/HPS'). 5. The writ Court after examining the relevant rules, held that prior to 2001, the pay scale of the Deputy Registrars of the High Court and that of the PPS/HPS was same and therefore, taking recourse to Rule 20(c)(ii) of the rules they were permitted to officiate as Deputy Registrars. It is a case of the applicants that they retired in the relevant years on attaining age of superannuation between years 1999 and 2000 respectively while working as Officiating Deputy Registrars. It is thus, they came to set up a case that they have been treated to have retired as Deputy Registrar instead of PPS/ HPS and consequently they were being denied benefit of revision in pension as per the recommendation made by the 6th Central Pay Commission. It is thus, they came to set up a case that they have been treated to have retired as Deputy Registrar instead of PPS/ HPS and consequently they were being denied benefit of revision in pension as per the recommendation made by the 6th Central Pay Commission. The writ Court referred to Rules, 2001, whereby, Rule 20(c)(ii) of the Rules, 1976 came to be repealed w.e.f. 15.11.2001 and the pay scale of PPS/HPS also came to be upgraded. The issue was raised in the writ petition to set up a claim to give revised pension of PPS/HPS as per the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission as if the applicants were made to retire as Deputy Registrar and conveyed the impression that since they had retired as such they were denied pay scale of PPS/HPS and subsequent revision in pension. Accordingly, the Court permitted this to be a pivotal question to be adjudicated upon in the writ petition by framing the point thus: "The pivotal question on which the claim of the petitioners revolve is as to whether the petitioners were appointed substantively on the post of Deputy Registrar or in the alternative whether petitioners continued to have lien on the post of PPS/HPS upon being appointed on transfer in officiating capacity to the post of Deputy Registrar." 6. Thus, the writ Court proceeded to decide this above question as substantial relief claimed in the writ petition and after long discussion on the point of lien of a person working in officiating capacity and referring to various authorities and placing substantial reliance upon them, the writ Court finally held that applicants who had retired as officiating Deputy Registrar since were not working in a substantive capacity as such, so they held their respective lien in their parent cadre of PPS/HPS even at the time of retirement. Thus, the applicants were held also to be entitled to revised pension admissible to the class of pensioners that retired from the post of PPS/HPS and it is after holding as above that the Court proceeded to pass the order for the Chief Treasury Officer, Collectorate, Prayagraj to revise pension of the applicants giving benefit to them of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at par with those persons of the PPS/HPS cadre as would have been admissible to them w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the respective applicants have argued that since the applicants in the writ petition were held to have retired as PPS/HPS, they would be consequently entitled to the pension as was admissible to the pensioners of the PPS/HPS cadre and also the revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that admissibility of pension has to be judged in a particular cadre as a pensioner on the date he retired because pension has to be calculated on the basis of the pay last drawn by the employee. He submits that if the applicants' had retired prior to the upgradation of pay scale in PPS/HPS cadre, though they might have been mentioned as officiating Deputy Registrar at the time of superannuation but technically they had retired as PPS/HPS only and in the pay scale that was also of the PPS/HPS at that point of time. He has argued further that revised pension as has been directed to be paid to the applicants giving them benefit of the 6th Pay Commission's recommendation w.e.f. 01.01.2006, was never an issue for the simple reason that the pension has to be revised on the basis of pension drawn. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that before the writ Court, the respondents might have taken the defence that the applicants were rightly retired as Deputy Registrar but that does not change the situation either, the pay scale of the Deputy Registrar and the PPS/HPS on the date of such retirement being the same. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that writ Court has also held that a pension is calculated only on the basis of last pay drawn. 9. Testing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respective parties on the testing anvil of service jurisprudence qua employer and employee relationship, I find that the admissibility of the pension of any employee would be dependant upon two factors: (i) pension as admissible to the class of service; and (ii) the requisite period of qualifying service for such pension is attained, as per the rules. Both these factors are governed under rules framed. So far fixation of pension is concerned, it is dependent upon the salary last fixed and drawn as admissible under the relevant rules framed for such purposes. Both these factors are governed under rules framed. So far fixation of pension is concerned, it is dependent upon the salary last fixed and drawn as admissible under the relevant rules framed for such purposes. Any upgradation of pay scale admissible to a class of employee, if made after a cut off date, such an upgradation cannot be made applicable/ admissible to employees who ceased to be employees of the establishment before the cut off date either by virtue of superannuation or resignation or termination/ removal, if such termination and removal has attained finality, unless and until such rules are given retrospective operation. So unless and until such rules are held to be ultra vires and are struck down by giving it retrospective effect, an employee while in service will governed in the matter of payment of pay scale and so also after retirement the procedure provided for computation of pension under such rules only. In the case of Exide Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India and others 2015 II AD (S.C.) 635, the Supreme Court has very clearly observed that: "In normal circumstances when an employee retires from service, his relationship with the employer comes to an end. It is also well settled that after retirement, normally no disciplinary action can, be initiated against the concerned employee. Similarly, the retired employee would not have any right of redetermination of his pension but only in cases where salary is revised with retrospective effect, the retired employee gets the benefit of additional pension and that too in certain cases." (Emphasis added) 10. Applying the above principle, I do not find that the applicants' case can be taken as an exception for redetermination of pension using upgraded pay scale by desired retrospective effect. In the entire judgment, non compliance of which is complained of in this contempt application, I do not find any finding returned in favour of the petitioners/ applicants that even though they retired prior to the upgradation of pay scale of PPS/ HPS, they would be given benefit of the upgraded pay scale that was made applicable to such class of employees who were in service subsequent to the retirement of the petitioners/ applicants only because they retired as officiating Deputy Registrars. Thus, three employees who were wrongly given benefit of upgraded pay scale necessary correction in their records have already been made. Thus, three employees who were wrongly given benefit of upgraded pay scale necessary correction in their records have already been made. Besides that there can be no claim of equality even if a similarly placed employee is given higher pay scale which would not have been admissible in law. In the case of State of West Bengal and others vs. West Bengal Government Pensioners Association and others, AIR 2002 SC 538 , the Supreme Court has cited with approval its earlier judgment in the case of K.L. Rathi vide para 25 which is reproduced hereunder: "25. Again in K.L. Rathee v. Union of India and others, the case of the petitioner was that following Nakara case he had to be given the same amount of pension as other employees of his rank irrespective of the date of retirement. The Court noted that Nakara did not strike down the definition of 'emoluments' and held that: "Nakara case does not lay down that the same amount of pension must be paid to all persons retiring from government service irrespective of the date of retirement .... Even if pension is calculated on the basis of the same formula the basis of calculation has to be the average of the last ten months emoluments. This principle of adopting last ten months emoluments as the basis for calculating of pension must be uniformly applied to all persons drawing pension from the Central Government. This was also that was laid down in Nakara case. It, however, did not lay down that the quantum of emoluments drawn during the last ten months of service of each government employee must be taken to be the same for this purpose.... The emoluments have to be calculated according to the government rules in force at the time of retirement of the employees." 11. In the case of Sudhir Kumar Consul vs. Allahabad Bank (2011) 3 SCC 486 , the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier judgment passed in the case of State of Punjab vs. Boota Singh, Ex Services League vs. Union of India and K.L. Rathi (supra) vide para 15 thus: "15. ... We are of the view that the retired employees (respondents), who had retired from service before 1- 7-1986 and those who were in employment on the said date, cannot be treated alike as they do not belong to one class. ... We are of the view that the retired employees (respondents), who had retired from service before 1- 7-1986 and those who were in employment on the said date, cannot be treated alike as they do not belong to one class. The workmen, who had retired after receiving all the benefits available under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, cease to be employees of the appellant-Board w.e.f. the date of their retirement. They form a separate class." 16. In State of Punjab v. Boota Singh case, (2000) 3 SCC 733 , this Court has held that the benefit conferred by the notification dated 9-7-1985 can be claimed by those who retire after the date stipulated in the notification and those who have retired prior to the stipulated date in the notification are governed by different rules. They are governed by the old rules, i.e., the rules prevalent at the time when they retire. The two categories of persons are governed by different sets of rules. They cannot be equated. The grant of additional benefit has financial implications and the specific date for the conferment of additional benefits cannot be considered arbitrary. This Court held: "In the case of Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 104 this Court distinguished the decision in Nakara case (1983) 1 SCC 305 and held that the ambit of that decision cannot be enlarged to cover all claim by retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree, irrespective of the date of retirement even though the emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension be different. We need not cite other subsequent decisions which have also distinguished Nakara case (1983) 1 SCC 305 . The latest decision is in the case of K.L. Rathee v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 7 where this Court, after referring to various judgments of this Court, has held that Nakara case (1983) 1 SCC 305 cannot be interpreted to mean that emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. The respondents are not entitled to claim benefits which became available at a much later date to retiring employees by reason of changes in the rules relating to pensionary benefits." 12. The respondents are not entitled to claim benefits which became available at a much later date to retiring employees by reason of changes in the rules relating to pensionary benefits." 12. Thus, So far as the post and its cadre is concerned, the writ Court rightly observed that one who has been confirmed in service and has been appointed in a substantive capacity in a particular cadre would continue to belong such cadre until his cadre is changed by giving him substantive appointment either by transfer or by promotion and a mere officiating charge would not deny lien to an employee against his original post in a cadre and so the applicants were rightly held to have retired as PPS/HPS. But so far the question of admissibility of pay scale is concerned, an employee continues to be in a regular cadre and the pay scale, so long as he is in the employment, as admissible to him, would be the pay scale that has been prescribed for such employment against the post occupied. The terms and conditions of payment of salary under the Rules would operate in respect of an employee so long as he is in employment and after employee ceases to be an employee and becomes a pensioner, he is shifted to a different class from those working in a regular cadre. For the purpose of pension, his last pay drawn is taken into account and merely because an employee has retired as PPS/HPS, he would not become entitle to any pay scale which might have been revised or upgraded after his attaining the age of superannuation because the admissibility of pay scale is to be commensurate to a person's status of holding a particular post while in employment. 13. The applicants have set up a claim that since they were treated to have retired as PPS/HPS, they would be entitled to the revised pension on the last pay drawn in the upgraded pay scale by an employee of their cadre in the year 2001. 14. This above argument cannot be accepted. The applicants have been held to have retired as PPS/HPS but the writ Court has not directed that the upgraded pay scale of the PPS/HPS after the superannuation of the applicants would also be applicable to them. 15. In the considered opinion of the Court also, such above plea is legally not maintainable. 16. This above argument cannot be accepted. The applicants have been held to have retired as PPS/HPS but the writ Court has not directed that the upgraded pay scale of the PPS/HPS after the superannuation of the applicants would also be applicable to them. 15. In the considered opinion of the Court also, such above plea is legally not maintainable. 16. Applicants' next submission that they are not able to draw benefit of the order of writ Court because they are already drawing revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 calculated on the basis of pension that they were drawing on the last pay drawn and that they have been made to retire as Deputy Registrar, does not equally hold any merit. The Court finds no contradiction in the judgment. The judgment says that the applicants would be taken to have retired as PPS/HPS and so orders that they are entitled for revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as admissible to class of pensioners of PPS/HPS. The applicants have not brought any instance that any PPS/HPS who had retired prior to year 2001 and whose pay scale was at par with that of the Deputy Registrar, had been awarded upgraded pay scale as was made admissible w.e.f. 2001 only. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that three of the PPS/HPS who had retired like the applicants, were granted higher pay grade even after retirement and so consequential benefits were conferred upon them in the revision of pension w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The applicants are right to the extent that three such PPS/HPS namely Abdul Ahad Khan, Lallan Mishra and Prakash Chandra Gupta who had retired on 31.12.1984, 31.08.1999 and 31.01.2000 were those who had been accorded with such benefit. However, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the High Court have submitted that this above anomaly later came to be noticed and has now stood rectified in the order dated 03.09.2019, wherein, they had been accorded pension at par with the applicants but of course commensurate to their pay scale that they had last drawn at the time of retirement. 17. In view of the above therefore, I do not find any ground to give benefit to the applicants on the basis of parity either. 18. 17. In view of the above therefore, I do not find any ground to give benefit to the applicants on the basis of parity either. 18. Furthermore, the issue of admissibility is always related to the words and expression "in accordance with law" and so what is legally not sustainable can also not be legally admissible and therefore, when the Court directs for payment of salary or pension, saying as admissible, meaning thereby it has to be in accordance with law. When the Court refers to the words and expression "class of pensioners", it means class of pensioners with admissibility of pension, as commensurate to their pay scale and emoluments lastly drawn, otherwise every pensioner would stand entitled to a consolidated pension at par ignoring the years of qualifying service and the benefits drawn of promotional pay scale or Acquired Career Progression scheme respectively. This Court, therefore, finds that neither opposite parties have acted in violation of either the mandate contained in the order of the writ Court, non compliance of which is complained of, nor the petitioners-applicants' claim could be justified on the principles governing conferment of benefits of pension. 19. In view of the above, I find that the order of revised pension dated 03.08.2019 and 03.09.2019 passed by the Registrar (Accounts), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the order passed by the Treasury Officer, Prayagraj dated 13.09.2019 fully comply the order of writ Court in its letter and spirit. Thus, no cause survives for the applicants to maintain this contempt application any further. 20. Contempt application is accordingly consigned to record. 21. Notices issued, if any, stand discharged.