JUDGMENT : (Sujoy Paul, ACJ.) These intra-Court Appeals take exception to the common order passed in W.P.Nos.14315, 15944 and 14641 of 2021, dated 20.12.2024 decided along with other matters. 2. The Writ Petitions were filed by retired employees assailing G.O.Ms.Nos.55 and 56, dated 11.06.2021. The main grievance of the petitioners/appellants is that the respondents/State while issuing the said G.Os. made it clear that the revised consolidated basic pension shall come into force with effect from 01.07.2018 notionally and monetary benefits shall be allowed w.e.f. 01.04.2020. Thus, no difference of Retirement Gratuity/ Encashment of Earned Leave shall be payable to the retired employees who retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020. Contention of the appellants: 3. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the pensioners belong to one homogeneous class. The respondents/State by putting the said condition and cut-off date divided a homogeneous class and made an attempt to create a class within the class. This hits Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot be treated to be a valid classification. There is no rationale behind the same, neither there exist any object sought to be achieved. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, by taking this Court to the order of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, urged that after considering the various judgments of the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge came to hold that the judgments are indeed applicable, but opined that the prescription of cut-off date for not extending actual monetary benefits is not bad in law. 5. Criticizing the aforesaid findings, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the curtains are finally drawn on this issue by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association v. State of Manipur , [(2020) 14 Supreme Court Cases 625] and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra , [(2023) 11 Supreme Court Cases 186] . In view of these authoritative pronouncements, wherein previous Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in DS Nakara v. Union of India , [ 1983 (1) SCC 305 ] was considered, learned Single Judge has certainly erred in not interfering with the offending portion of G.Os and erred in declining the relief. 6. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, wherein previous Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in DS Nakara v. Union of India , [ 1983 (1) SCC 305 ] was considered, learned Single Judge has certainly erred in not interfering with the offending portion of G.Os and erred in declining the relief. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants, by placing reliance on Article 366 (17) of the Constitution, submits that definition of pension is wide enough to include gratuity and retiral dues. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge was not justified in not interfering with the impugned G.Os. Contention of the State: 7. Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the State on the other hand supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and urged that the learned Single Judge has considered the judgments cited by present appellants in the aforesaid paragraphs as well as the other judgments of the Supreme Court and rightly came to hold that the recommendation of Pay Commission is not as such binding on the Government and financial constraints is one of the relevant considerations for prescribing a cut-off date. Thus, on that relevant consideration if Government has decided not to extend the actual benefit for a particular period and prescribed a cut-off date, it cannot be said to be unconstitutional in nature. 8. To buttress the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. Pensioners’ Association , [ (2005) 13 SCC 161 ] . It is submitted that almost in similar factual background, a matter travelled from this Court to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in clear terms opined that financial constraints can be a ground to take a decision prescribing a cut-off date. The next reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1071 . On the strength of this judgment, Sri S. Rahul Reddy submits that after considering a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court made it clear that financial burden can lead to fixing of a cut-off date, which cannot be said to be unconstitutional in nature. Thus, the learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. Thus, the learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. 10. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record. Findings:- 11. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.55 and 56, dated 11.06.2021, which reads as under: G.O.Ms.No.55: “4. a) The existing Pension/Family Pension, in respect of those retired or died while in service prior to 01.07.2018 and also in the case of Family Pensioners who are in receipt of Family Pension as on 1.7.2018 be consolidated, by adding fitment benefit of 30% on the Basic Pension/Basic Family Pension and by merging the Dearness Relief @ 30.392% admissible as on 01.07.2018. The same shall be known as Revised Consolidated Basic Pension/Revised Consolidated Basic Family Pension. b) This Revised Consolidated Basic Pension or Revised Consolidated Basic Family Pension shall come into force with effect from 01.07.2018 notionally and the monetary benefit be allowed with effect from 01.04.2020. c) The Consolidated Pension/Family Pension shall be paid from the month of June, 2021 payable in the month of July, 2021. d) The arrears on account of Consolidation of Pension/Family Pension /Financial Assistance for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.05.2021, will be paid in 36 equal monthly instalments. e) No difference on Retirement Gratuity/Encashment of Earned Leave shall be allowed in case of employees who retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020. 5. While fixing the consolidated Basic Pension/Basic Family Pension as above, part of a rupee, if any arrived, should be rounded off to the next higher rupee. 6. While consolidating the Pension, the additional quantum of pension paid to Pensioners on attaining specified ages, which is shown distinctly, should be ignored. 7. In the case of employees who retired from service on or after 01.07.2018, the pension shall be calculated on the pay in Revised Pay Scales, 2020 only. 8.1 The employees who retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020 are eligible for revision of their pay in the Revised Pay Scales, 2020 notionally as per the orders issued in the G.O. sixth read above. As such, the pensions of these employees have to be revised notionally based on the revised pay in Revised Pay Scales, 2020 and monetary benefit should be allowed from 01.04.2020 only. As such, the pensions of these employees have to be revised notionally based on the revised pay in Revised Pay Scales, 2020 and monetary benefit should be allowed from 01.04.2020 only. 8.2 No difference on Retirement Gratuity/Encashment of Earned Leave shall be allowed to the Pensioners on the pension notionally fixed as above.” G.O.Ms.No.56: “6. The arrears on account of revision of Gratuity from 01.04.2020 to 31.05.2021, will be paid in thirty six (36) equal monthly installments.” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. As noticed above, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on two judgments of Supreme Court in All Manipur Pensioners Association and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association (both supra). The Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in DS Nakara (supra) was also relied upon. 13. In All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra), the Supreme Court considered the decision and action of creating two classes viz., one who retired pre-1996 and others who retired post- 1996 for the purpose of grant of revised pension. The Supreme Court opined that such classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. It is further opined that all pensioners form one class who are entitled to pension as per Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the cut-off date in this backdrop was held to be improper. 14. A careful reading of the above judgment also shows that in no uncertain terms in para 8.2 it was poignantly held that whenever a new benefit is granted or new scheme is introduced, State may provide a cut-off date taking into account its financial resources. 15. In Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex- Employees Association (supra), the Supreme Court again considered that the employees who retired prior to 29.03.2010 and subsequent thereto were performing same duties. Since there was no valid distinction between those who retired before 29.03.2010 and those who continued thereafter, the Supreme Court held that classification is improper and the appeal was accordingly allowed. Pertinently, in this case, the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the aspect of financial constraints of the State Government. 16. In the case of A.P. Pensioners’ Association , GO(P) No.114, dated 11.08.1999, was subject matter of challenge. The offending clauses 9 and 16 are reproduced for ready reference. “9. Persons who retired between 1-7-1998 and 31-3-1999 shall also be eligible for the Revised Pay Scales, 1999. 16. In the case of A.P. Pensioners’ Association , GO(P) No.114, dated 11.08.1999, was subject matter of challenge. The offending clauses 9 and 16 are reproduced for ready reference. “9. Persons who retired between 1-7-1998 and 31-3-1999 shall also be eligible for the Revised Pay Scales, 1999. The notional pay fixed in the Revised Pay Scales, 1999 in accordance with these orders, shall in such cases count towards pensionary benefits. 16. Separate orders are also being issued in regard to the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission on pension and other terminal benefits.” 17. The State also issued GO(P) No.15 on 16.09.1999, wherein it was categorically stated that revised consolidated pension shall come into force with effect from 01.07.1998 with monetary benefits payable from 01.04.1999. G.O.Ms.No.158 was issued on 16.09.1999 enhancing the limit of commutation of pension under Rules to 40% of pension sanctioned to the pensioners with effect from 01.04.1999. Such enhancement was made applicable only in relation to the persons who retired or died on or after 01.04.1999. On 23.12.1999, G.O.Ms.No.206 was issued and all these cut-off dates and aspect of financial constraints became subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in A.P. Pensioners’ Association (supra) considered its previous judgment in State Government Pensioners’ Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [ (1986) 3 SCC 501 ] and opined as under: “32. In State Govt. Pensioners' Assn. v. State of A.P. [ (1986) 3 SCC 501 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 676] this Court accepted that when the revised scheme became operative from 1-4-1978, non-payment of gratuity under the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 was not payable to those pensioners who retired prior thereto stating that at the time of retirement they were governed by the then existing rules and their gratuity was calculated on that basis. The Court rejected the contention that the same was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” (Emphasis Supplied) 18. After detailed analysis, the Supreme Court made it clear that financial implication can be a relevant consideration to determine the cut-off date. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “ 39. It is, therefore, beyond any shadow of doubt that the financial implication is a relevant criterion for the State Government to determine as to what benefits can be granted pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations made by PRC. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “ 39. It is, therefore, beyond any shadow of doubt that the financial implication is a relevant criterion for the State Government to determine as to what benefits can be granted pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations made by PRC. PRC also said that while revision of pay shall take effect from 1-7-1998, the monetary benefit would be payable only from 1-4-1999. If monetary benefit was payable only from 1-4-1999, all rights to get the benefits computed on the basis of the revised scale of pay would only be for the purpose of payment of pay with effect from 1-4-1999 or payment of the recurring amount of pension with effect from that date.” (Emphasis Supplied) 19. A similar view is taken in the case of Anjana Bhattacharjee (supra), which reads as under: “19 . Whether the financial crunch/financial constraint due to additional financial burden can be a valid ground to fix a cut- off date for the purpose of granting the actual benefit of revision of pension/pay has been dealt with and/or considered by this Court in Amar Nath Goyal [ State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal , (2005) 6 SCC 754 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 910] . In the aforesaid decision, it is observed and held by this Court that financial constraint can be a valid ground for fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefit of increased quantum of death-cum-retirement gratuity. In paras 26, 32 and 33 of the said judgment [ State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal , (2005) 6 SCC 754 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 910], it is observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 763 & 765) “26. It is difficult to accede to the argument on behalf of the employees that a decision of the Central Government/State Governments to limit the benefits only to employees, who retire or die on or after 1-4-1995, after calculating the financial implications thereon, was either irrational or arbitrary. Financial and economic implications are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administration of the Government, at the Centre or at the State level. *** 32. The importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including the following two cases. Financial and economic implications are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administration of the Government, at the Centre or at the State level. *** 32. The importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including the following two cases. In State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi [State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi, (1997) 2 SCC 342 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 512] this Court went so as far as to note that: ‘17. … Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut-off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ petitions and substituting the date of 1-1-1986 for 1-1-1990.’ [Id, SCC p. 348, para 17 (emphasis supplied).] 33. More recently, in Veerasamy [T.N. SEB v. R. Veerasamy, (1999) 3 SCC 414 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 717] this Court observed that, financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis [Id SCC p. 421, para 15] . In that case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from service before 1-7-1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed separate classes.” 20. In the aforesaid decision this Court after considering the earlier decisions of this Court in State of Punjab v. Boota Singh [State of Punjab v. Boota Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 733 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 435] and State of Punjab v. J.L. Gupta [State of Punjab v. J.L. Gupta, (2000) 3 SCC 736 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 437], it is specifically observed and held that for the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered arbitrary. 21. 21. In the subsequent decision in Bihar Pensioners Samaj [ State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj , (2006) 5 SCC 65 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 913] , the decision in Amar Nath Goyal [ State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal , (2005) 6 SCC 754 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 910] is followed and it is observed and held that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while introducing a pension scheme on revised basis. It is further observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.” (Emphasis Supplied) 20. At the cost of repetition, in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Supreme Court opined that the financial constraints can be a valid consideration for prescribing a cut-off date. In other cases cited by the State, it is clearly held that financial constraints can be a reason for prescribing a cut-off date. 21. In the instant case, learned Single Judge considered the judgment relied upon by the parties and came to the conclusion as under: “In the instant case, for the purpose of achieving the object of extending the revised pay scales/pension to its serving/retired employees, duly balancing the financial implications on the State Exchequer, the Government has prescribed a cut-off date, for extending the monetary benefits arising on account of enhanced Encashment of Leave and Gratuity, to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, which admittedly do not have any impact on the pension being drawn by them and it also cannot be said that the said action of the respondents is against the object/purpose of revision of payscales and pension. Therefore, the judgments relied by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and no avail to them.” (Emphasis Supplied) 22. If the findings given by learned single Judge are tested on the anvil of principles laid down in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra), A.P. Pensioners’ Association (supra) and Anjana Bhattacharjee (supra), it can be safely held that the findings given by the learned single Judge are based on the ratio decidendi of the said cases. If the findings given by learned single Judge are tested on the anvil of principles laid down in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra), A.P. Pensioners’ Association (supra) and Anjana Bhattacharjee (supra), it can be safely held that the findings given by the learned single Judge are based on the ratio decidendi of the said cases. The learned single Judge has applied a relevant consideration i.e., financial constraints on the State exchequer. Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument that persons retired before a particular cut-off date and after a cut-off date belong to a homogenous class, the fact remains that decision to grant the benefit from a cut-off date based on financial constraints is founded upon a valid consideration. No amount of argument is advanced to attack the prescription of cut-off date based on financial constraints. Thus, in our view, the learned single Judge has taken a plausible view which warrants no interference. 23. The Writ Appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.