JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondents. [2.] As many as 1348 petitioners have joined hands in filing the instant writ petition on the ground that they all have a common cause of action against the respondent authorities. The petitioners have retired from service between 01.01.2016 to 30.08.2018 and they are arrayed in the writ petition either in their personal capacity or through their legal representative in respect of those who have expired. [3.] The case of the petitioners is that the Government of Mizoram in the Finance Department (Pay Research Unit) vide Notification dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure-2) notified the 7th Central Revision of Pay (as modified and extended to employees under the Govt. of Mizoram Rules, 2018. (hereafter referred to as the 7th Revision of Pay Rules for short). [4.] The 7th Revision of Pay Rules was made in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with Article 162 of the same Constitution. Clause-1(2) provides that the Rules will come into force on the first day of January, 2016 and the Pay under the rules shall be notionally fixed w.e.f 01.01.2016 and actual monetary benefits shall be paid w.e.f 01.09.2018. [5.] Thereafter, the Govt. of Mizoram in the Finance Department (APF Branch) issued O.M dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure-3), in respect of Revised Pension Scheme - 2018 for post 01.01.2016 and for pre 01.01.2016 retirees. The said O.M according to the petitioner has a statutory force, inasmuch as it was issued in the name of the Governor of Mizoram. For the purpose of the present writ petition, we are concerned with post 01.01.2016 retirees. The petitioners’ contend that as per clause 3.2 of the said Office Memorandum where pension/family pension/gratuity/commutation of pension etc. has already been sanctioned in cases occurring on or after 01.01.2016, the same shall be revised in terms of the orders in the Office Memorandum. In cases, where pension has been finally sanctioned on the pre-revised orders and if it happens to be more beneficial than the pension becoming due under the orders in the memorandum, the pension already sanctioned shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the pensioner in view of Rule 70 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Pension Rules). In cases, where pension has been finally sanctioned on the pre-revised orders and if it happens to be more beneficial than the pension becoming due under the orders in the memorandum, the pension already sanctioned shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the pensioner in view of Rule 70 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Pension Rules). The petitioners therefore contend that in view of this enabling clause, the gratuity, commutation of pension and leave salary should be revised as entitled to them in view of the fact that they have retired on or after 01.01.2016, making them eligible to get such benefit as per the Revised Pension Scheme - 2018 [6.] While the petitioners were expecting revision of their entitlements in respect of gratuity, commutation and leave encashment, the respondent authorities in the Finance Department (APF Branch) came up with the impugned O.M dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure-4) whereby, the revision of gratuity and commutation has been made admissible only for those who retired/died between 01.09.2018 and 13.12.2018. Whereas, in respect of those Government servants who retired/died between 01.01.2016 and 31.03.2018, it was made inapplicable. Being aggrieved, the petitioners submitted their representation before the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Finance Department on 20.06.2019 (Annexure-5). [7.] In the said representation, the petitioners sought for recalling the O.M dated 15.01.2019 and to extend them the pensionary benefits in terms of the 7th Revision of Pay Rules by revising their respective entitlements in respect of leave encashment, salary, DCRG/Gratuity, commutation, etc. The State respondents thereafter vide Communication dated 10.07.2019 (Annexure-6) informed the petitioners that the lump sum benefits such as leave encashment, Death cum Retirement Gratuity and commutation being one-time payment, the same cannot be notionally revised in the same manner as monthly pension/family pension. As such, their request for revision of the same was regretted. The said communication was made by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Finance Department (APF). The petitioners thus being aggrieved are before this Court through the instant writ petition. [8.] Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, the learned counsels submits that the 7th Central Pay recommendation was introduced in a revised form by the State Government in exercise its powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution read with Article 162 of the same Constitution and it came into force w.e.f 01.01.2016. [8.] Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, the learned counsels submits that the 7th Central Pay recommendation was introduced in a revised form by the State Government in exercise its powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution read with Article 162 of the same Constitution and it came into force w.e.f 01.01.2016. While it provided for notional fixation of pay w.e.f 01.01.2016, the actual monetary benefit is to be paid w.e.f. 01.09.2018. Since the effective date to apply the 7th Pay Revision is from 01.01.2016, the petitioners are covered by the said notification. Referring to paragraph 3.2 of the O.M dated 13.12.2018, the learned counsel submits that it has clearly been provided that where pension/family pension/gratuity/commutation of pension etc. has already been sanctioned in cases occurring on or after 01.01.2016, the same is to be revised in terms of the revised pension scheme. It further provides that when pension has been finally sanctioned as per the pre-revised orders and in case the same was more beneficial to the pensioner, the pension already sanctioned was not to be revised to the disadvantage of the pensioner considering Rule 70 of the Pension Rules. While paragraph 3.2 of the Office Memorandum clearly provided for revision of the gratuity, commutation and other benefits, the State respondents in the Finance Department have come up with the impugned O.M dated 15.01.2019 creating 2 (two) separate class of pensioners. Revision of gratuity and commutation has been granted to those who retired or died between 01.09.2018 and 30.12.2018 but it has been made inapplicable to those who have retired or died between 01.01.2016 to 31.08.2018. She submits that this creation of two classes cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the pensioners belong to one homogenous group and creation of two different classes amongst equals is not permissible in law. The State respondents themselves have clearly provided in the O.M dated 13.12.2018 that revision of gratuity, commutation of pension, etc. is permissible in cases of those which has already been sanctioned on or after 01.01.2016 and therefore, the impugned O.M dated 15.01.2019 cannot be sustained. She submits that in fact, the O.M dated 15.01.2019 has been issued by way of an administrative instruction and that such instructions cannot be made contrary to the provisions framed in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. She submits that in fact, the O.M dated 15.01.2019 has been issued by way of an administrative instruction and that such instructions cannot be made contrary to the provisions framed in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. She submits that both the Notification dated 16.08.2018 and 13.12.2018 having statutory force, the O.M 15.01.2019 cannot come in the way to deny the benefit as entitled to the petitioners. Referring to the impugned Notification dated 10.07.2019 by which the representation of the petitioners was rejected, the learned counsel submits that the reason mentioned therein that lump-sum benefit such as leave encashment, DCRG and commutation being one-time payment, notional revision of the same was not possible is only misconceived and cannot be accepted in view of paragraph 3.2 of O.M dated 13.12.2018, which provides that revision can be made in terms of the revised pension scheme. The learned counsel therefore submits that under the facts and circumstances, the respondents should be directed to grant the petitioners the benefit of revision of their gratuity, commutation and leave encashment. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following:- (i) All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers & Employees’ Committee & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors., 2016 (4) GLT 85. (ii) D.S Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 . (iii) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma, (2015) 9 SCC 540 . (iv) Ajay Kumar Das Vs. State of Orissa & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 136 . (v) Judgment & Order dated 11.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10857/2016 (All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary Vs. The State of Manipur & Ors.) [9.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners are in fact not aggrieved with the O.M dated 13.12.2018 wherein at paragraph 3.1, it has clearly been provided that the revision provisions as per the orders shall apply to Government servants who retired/died in harness on or after 01.01.2016 and with actual monetary benefit w.e.f 01.09.2018. When the said provision clearly stipulates that monetary benefit would be admissible only from 01.09.2018, the petitioners cannot make a claim to get the benefit of revision of their pensionary benefits in respect of gratuity, commutation and leave encashment from any date prior to 01.09.2018. When the said provision clearly stipulates that monetary benefit would be admissible only from 01.09.2018, the petitioners cannot make a claim to get the benefit of revision of their pensionary benefits in respect of gratuity, commutation and leave encashment from any date prior to 01.09.2018. The said cut-off-date has been made universal on all Government employees and that the petitioners are no exception. The learned State counsel further submits that unless a particular cut-off-date is fixed, it would not be possible for the State Government to implement the revision of pay. In fact, fixation of such cut-off date is closely linked and associated with the well established principle of no work no pay as enunciated by the Apex Court in a catena of the decisions including in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. S.K Khosla & Ors., reported in (2007) 15 SCC 777 . [10.] The learned Addl. Advocate General referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents on 28.04.2020 submits that the payment of pension in fact is subject to future good conduct. The same has been provided under Rule 8 of the Pension Rules. Referring to the said provision which has been annexed as Annexure-III to the affidavit-in-opposition, the learned State Counsel submits that future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under the rules. The Appointing Authority may, by order in writing, withhold for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. The learned State counsel submits that the reason why he has referred to Rule 8 of the Pension Rules is to show that the grievances of the petitioners is not covered by Rule 70 of the Pension Rules and that Rule 70 which in turns relates to Rule 8 & 9 of the Pension Rules. [11.] The learned Addl. Advocate General also submits that since the O.M dated 13.12.2018 did not provide for a specific date from which revision of the lump-sum payment of gratuity commutation of pension etc is to be made, the State respondents in the Finance Department issued the O.M dated 15.01.2019 clearly providing those who be entitled to revision of gratuity and commutation. Therefore, the same cannot be in any way termed as arbitrary, misplaced or unauthorised. Therefore, the same cannot be in any way termed as arbitrary, misplaced or unauthorised. [12.] The learned State counsel submits that the 7th Revision of Pay Rules is meant for in-service Government employees and the case of the petitioners are covered by the O.M dated 13.12.2018 and also the O.M dated 15.01.2019 wherein, it has clearly been provided in what manner the pension/family pension/gratuity/commutation of pension, etc, which are to be calculated and given to the pensioners. [13.] The learned State counsel lastly refers to Annexure-IX of the affidavit-in-opposition to contend that as per Rule 35 of the Pension Rules a superannuation pension shall be granted to a Government servant who is retired on his attaining the age of compulsory retirement. He submits that this is to show that fixation of a particular date is necessary to determine admissibility and eligibility for receiving benefits. The learned Addl. Advocate General also refers to Review Petition No. 4/2019 arising out of WP(C) No. 52/2016 and also Review Petition No. 7/2019 arising out of WP(C) No. 189/2016 to contend that the cut-off-date fixed for implementing the 6th Pay Revision and the Mizoram Revision of Pay Rules, 2010 has clearly been accepted upheld by this Court and that being the position, the same principle should apply to the present case as well. In other words, it has become an accepted position that in order to implement revision of pay, the State Government is within its right to fix a certain cut-off-date. He submits that it is clear from the two decisions being referred that a Government servant who retires between the date fixed for notional revision of pay and the date for granted actual monetary benefit cannot be given the pensionary benefit by way of revision of the lump-sum pensionary benefits. There can be differences in the amount of pay and allowances entitled to two different Government servants even if there is just one day difference in their date of birth and which ultimately determines their date of superannuation. Therefore, in the 7th Revision of Pay Rules as adopted by the Government of Mizoram it is clearly provided that the actual monetary benefit would be granted only from 01.09.2018 and the same applies to the petitioners as well. Under the facts and circumstances, the learned Addl. Therefore, in the 7th Revision of Pay Rules as adopted by the Government of Mizoram it is clearly provided that the actual monetary benefit would be granted only from 01.09.2018 and the same applies to the petitioners as well. Under the facts and circumstances, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the petitioners do not have any legitimate grievance and that the writ petition should be dismissed. [14.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. [15.] As already stated herein above, the petitioners are Government Employees who retired from service between 01.01.2016 to 30.08.2018. The State Government adopted the 7th Central Pay Revision in a modified form by publishing the 7th Revision of Pay Rules vide Notification dated 16.08.2018. As per the said Notification, the pay revision is to come into effect from 01.01.2016. The pay under the rules will be notionally fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and the actual monetary benefits will be paid w.e.f. 01.09.2018. The petitioners having retired between 01.01.2016 to 30.08.2018 are therefore, they are clearly covered by the 7th Pay Revision. [16.] The State Government in the Finance Department vide O.M dated 13.12.2018 published the Revised Pension Scheme - 2018. The O.M was published to introduce modifications in the rules relating to pension, gratuities, family pension, disability pension and ex-gratia lump-sum compensation under the Pension Rules. Similar to the Notification dated 16.08.2018, the said O.M at paragraph 3.1 provides that the revised provision as per the orders shall apply to Government servants who retired/died in harness on or after 01.01.2016 with monetary benefits w.e.f 01.09.2018. Paragraph 3.2 provides that where pension/family pension/gratuity/commutation of pension, etc has already been sanctioned in cases occurring on or after 01.01.2016, the same shall be revised in terms of these orders. In cases where pension has been sanctioned on the pre-revised orders and if it happens to be more beneficial than the pension becoming due under orders, the pension already sanctioned shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the petitioner in view of Rule 70 of the Pension Rules. [17.] Thereafter, another office memorandum i.e. Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2019 was issued by the State Government in the Finance Department to clarify paragraph 3.2 of the O.M dated 13.12.2018. [17.] Thereafter, another office memorandum i.e. Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2019 was issued by the State Government in the Finance Department to clarify paragraph 3.2 of the O.M dated 13.12.2018. As per the said clarification, revision of gratuity and commutation as per the earlier office memorandum will apply to Government servants, who retired/died between 01.09.2018 and 13.12.2018 i.e. the date of issue of the earlier office memorandum. However, it shall not apply to those Government servants who retired/died between 01.01.2016 and 31.08.2018. The reasoning and justification given was that gratuity and commutation are lump-sum one-time payment and since monetary benefit is effective from 01.09.2018 only. The said reasoning and justification has also been reiterated by the respondents in the Communication dated 10.07.2019 by which the revision of the petitioners was rejected or regretted. [18.] A combined reading of the Notification dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure-2) and 13.12.2018 (Annexure-3) would go to show that revision of gratuity and commutation of pension amongst others is permissible in cases occurring after 01.01.2016 even if sanction had already been made. In other words, appropriate revision as per the modalities laid down by the said notification and office memorandum was permissible. It further provided that if the already sanctioned pre-revised pension was beneficial to the petitioner, the same would not be revised to the disadvantage of the pensioner. While such was the position, the State respondents in the Finance Department came up with the O.M dated 15.01.2019 by creating two separate categories of pensioners i.e. those who retired/died before 01.09.2018 and 13.12.2018 as one category and those who retired/died between 01.01.2016 and 31.08.2018 as another category. While the former category was given, the benefit of revision of gratuity and commutation, the second category has been denied such revision. Pensionary benefits such as gratuity/DCRG, commutation, leave encashment, etc. undisputably all relates to the pay scale or pay band of the Government employee concerned. Notification dated 16.08.2018 by which the 7th Revision of Pay Rules was notified provides that the pay under the rules shall be notionally fixed w.e.f 01.01.2016 and that the actual monetary benefit shall be paid w.e.f. 01.09.2018. The contention of the State respondents that gratuity and commutation being lump-sum one-time payment, the same cannot be revised in the same manner as monthly pension/family pension only appears to be misconceived. The contention of the State respondents that gratuity and commutation being lump-sum one-time payment, the same cannot be revised in the same manner as monthly pension/family pension only appears to be misconceived. This is because as per the O.M dated 15.01.2019, the revision of gratuity and commutation has been made permissible to those Government servants who retired/died between 01.09.2018 and 13.12.2018. Therefore, the State Government cannot take two divergent stand by creating two separate categories of pensioners. Since actual monetary benefit is to be paid w.e.f. 01.09.2018, the petitioners obviously cannot claim monetary benefit prior to the cut-off date but they will definitely be entitled to notional fixation of pay and other pensionary benefits, as per their entitlement w.e.f 01.01.2016. As already stated herein above, the State respondents themselves demonstrated that revision of gratuity and commutation is admissible for those Government servants who retired/died between 01.09.2018 and 13.12.2018. [19.] The Apex Court in D.S Nakara & Ors (supra) held that pensioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits form a class. They belong to a homogenous class and any classification amongst pensioners will have to be founded on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the object sought to be achieved. If the same cannot be established, any inequality amongst the pensioners will be discriminatory. The relevant portion of the Apex Court judgment at paragraph No. 42 may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “42. If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational principle ? The classification has to be based, as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior to that date. We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to government servants then those who retired earlier cannot be worst off than those who retire later. Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory.” [20.] A similar situation was also faced by the pensioners in the State of Assam in All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers and Employees’ Committee & Ors. (supra). The petitioners therein approached the High Court challenging the decision of the Government not to pay arrear pension, DCRG etc to those who retired between the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2009, whereas such benefits was to be paid in respect of employees who retired in the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.01.2010. The classification of the two groups of employees was provided in clause 42.2 of the report of the Assam Pay Commission. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court upon hearing the case projected by the rival parties came to a finding that such classification of employees to get arrear pension, DCRG, etc would not be permissible in law as it clearly attracted Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was also placed by the Court to the Apex Court decision in D.S Nakara & Ors (supra). [21.] Coming back to the present case, as already noticed herein above, the State respondents have created two categories of pensioners vide the impugned Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2019 and which originally was not provided by the 7th Revision of Pay Rules notified on 16.08.2018 and which in fact was framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 r/w Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle of law that statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. It is a well settled principle of law that statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be tinkered by the administrative instructions or circulars. This was what the Apex Court had held in Ajay Kumar Das (supra). Besides this, division of pensioners in two categories to receive and not receive the benefit of revision of gratuity and commutation as provided in the impugned O.M dated 15.01.2019 clearly attracts Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. [22.] In so far as the Review Petitions referred to by the learned Addl. Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that the same cannot be applicable to the present case and much less, binding in nature. This is because the parties did not dispute the cut-off-date and it was only a misconception on the part of the petitioners about the date of their retirement. Therefore, the case referred to by the learned State counsel has no application to the present case. I also find that the concept of no work no pay and future good conduct being a condition for grant of pension as submitted by the learned State counsel to be misplaced. [23.] Thus upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, I find the grievances projected by the petitioners to be legitimate and thereby, warranting the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned O.M dated 15.01.2019 (Annexure-4) and the Communication dated 10.07.2019 (Annexure-6) are hereby set aside. The State respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the revision of gratuity, commutation and leave salary to the petitioners as per their entitlement under the 7th Revision of Pay Rules and the Revised Pension Scheme - 2018 by granting them the actual monetary benefit from the cut-off date prescribed i.e. 01.09.2018 by initiating all necessary steps without delay by keeping in mind the fact that the petitioners are pensioners. [24.] The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of as allowed. No cost.