SUDHIR KUMAR CONSULversusALLAHABAD BANK

                    [2011) 2 S.C.R. 1119


                 SUDHIR KUMAR CONSUL                               A
                              v.
                    ALLAHABAD BANK
            (Civil Appeal No. 1982-83 of 2011)
                    FEBRUARY 21, 2011
                                                                   B
             [D.K. JAIN AND H.L.DATIU, JJ.]

    Allahabad Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979:

    Object of the Act - Discussed.                                 c
     Regulation 46 - Pension under Old Pension Scheme -
Appellant working as clerk as on 1. 7. 1979 and promoted as
an officer in 1983 - Claim for pension under the Old Pension
Scheme - Held: By virtue of Regulation 46 (1), pension in lieu
of gratuity was available only to the officers appointed prior     0
to or on 01.07.1979 and not to officers appointed; recruited
or promoted thereafter - Therefore, appellant was not eligible
to claim any benefit under the Old Pension Scheme - Service
law - Pension.
                                                                   E
    Constitution of India, 1950:

     Article 14 - Fixing of cut-off date for granting retirement
benefits such as gratuity or pension - By virtue of Regulation
46(1) of Allahabad Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979,
benefit of pension in lieu of gratuity available only to the       F
officers appointed prior to or on 01.07.1979 and not to officers
appointed, recruited or promoted thereafter- Reasonableness
of such differentiation - Held: Fixing of cut-off date, thereby,
creating two distinct and separate classes of employees is
reasonable and not offend Article 14 - Allahabad Bank              G
Officers Service Regulations, 1979 - Regulation 46(1).

    Administrative law:

                             1119                                  H
    1120    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [20111 2 S.C.R.

A        Subordinate legislation - Legality of - Held: Can be
    challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary, unreasonable and
    offends Article 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India,
    1950 - Article 14.

         The appellant was appointed as a clerk in
8
    respondent bank on 21.02.1976. He was promoted to the
    post of JMG scale I Officer Grade on 02.05.1983. The
    services of the appellant, after promotion were governed
    by the Allahabad Bank Officers Service Regulations,
C   1979. The appellant applied for the voluntary retirement
    pursuant to the Allahabad Bank Employees Voluntary
    Retirement Scheme, 2000 which was accepted on
    12.04.2001 and the appellant stood relieved from the
    services of the Bank on 30.04.2001. After retirement, the
    appellant was offered gratuity under the Payment of
D   Gratuity Act, 1972 by the respondent which the appellant
    declined to accept. The appellant made a request to the
    competent authority for sanction of pension in lieu of
    gratuity, but his request was rejected as not maintainable
    on the ground that an officer employed or appointed after
E   01.07.1079 was ineligible for pension under the Old
    Pension Scheme in view of Regulation 46 of the 1979
    Regulations. The appellant filed writ petition before the
    High Court. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and
    directed the respondent to pay gratuity to the appellant
F   as per Regulation 46(2) of the 1979 Regulations after
    adjusting the amount of gratuity already paid to the
    appellant. The instant appeals were filed challenging the
    order of the High Court.
        Dismissing the appeals, the court
G
        HELD : 1. The appellant is not entitled to claim
    pensionary benefit in view of Regulation 46(1) of the
    Allahabad Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979.
    Regulation 46(1) provides pensionary benefit under
H
   SUDHIR KUMAR CONSUL v. ALLAHABAD BANK 1121


  existing supplementary pension Scheme in lieu of A
  gratuity only to those officers who were officers on the
  appointed date i.e. the officers who were appointed on
  or before 01.07 .1979. Moreover, Provision 3 of the Old
  Pension Scheme stipulates that the officers who are
. recruited or promoted after 01.07 .1979, i.e. the date of B
  implementation of the 1979 Regulations, are not entitled
  for pension as per the said Regulations. It is an admitted
  fact that the appellant was working with the respondent
  as a Clerk on 01.07.1979 and was promoted as an officer
  only in 1983. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible to c
  claim any benefit under the Old Pension Scheme. [Para
  8] [1128-B-E]
      2. It is. well settled law that the vires of any
 subordinate legislation can be challenged on the ground
 that it is arbitrary, unreasonable and offends Article 14 of D
 the Constitution of India. The 1979 Regulations were
 introduced with a view to standardize and provide
 comprehensive and compact set of rules in respect of
 wages and perquisites of the officers of the Bank. In
 furtherance of this object, Regulation 46 (1) of the 1979 E
 Regulations provides pension in lieu of gratuity only to
 the officers appointed prior to or on 01.07.1979 and not
 to officers appointed, recruited or promoted thereafter. In
 this view, the said Regulation 46 (1) lays down a
 reasonable criteria for differentiation between the officers F
 appointed prior to or on 01.07.1979 and not to officers
 appointed, recruited or promoted thereafter. Hence the
 said Regulation 46(1) is in consonance with the Article 14
 of the constitution of India. Moreover, the fixing of the cut-
 off date for granting retirement benefits such as gratuity G
 or pension under the different schemes incorporated in
 the subordinate legislation, thereby, creating two distinct
 and separate classes of employees is well within the
 ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution. The differential
 treatment of two sets of officers appointed prior to the H
     1122    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 2 S.C.R.


 A notified date would not offend Article 14 of the
   Constitution. The cut off date may be justified on the
   ground that additional outlay as involved or the fact that
   under the terms of appointment, the employee was not
   entitled to the benefit of pension or retirement. [Para 9)
 B [1128-F-H; 1129-A-C]

         Union of India v. P.N. Menon, (1994) 4 SCC 68; State ·
    Government Pensioners' Association v. State of A.P. (1986)
    3 SCC 501; Action Committee South Eastern Railway·
    Pensioners v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 544; All
  C India Reserve bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of
    India 1992 Supp (1) SCC 664; University Grants
    Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC 536;
    T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veera samy (1999) 3 SCC 414;
    State of Punjab v. Boota Singh (2000) 3 SCC 733; State of
· D Punjab v. J. L. Gupta (2000) 3 SCC 736; Ramrao v. All India
    Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn.· (2004) 2
    SCC 76; State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal (2005) 6 SCC
    754; State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj (2006) 5 SCC
     65 - relied on.
 E
        3. In a society governed by Rule of law, sympathies
   cannot override the Rules and Regulations. However,
   liberty is granted to the appellant, if he so desires, to
   exercise his option to join the 1995 Regulations within 30
 F days. If such an option is exercised by the appellant, the
   respondents are directed to consider the same
   sympathetically within 60 days from the date of the
   option. [Para 21) (1135-C-D-G]
      Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha
 G Ramachhandra Ambekar and Anr. (1994) 2 SCC 718 -
     relied on.
                        Case Law Reference:
         (1994) 4 sec 68           referred to         Para 4
 H
     SUDHIR KUMAR CONSUL v. ALLAHABAD BANK 1123


        (1986) 3 sec 501             referred to          Para 11      A
        1991 Supp (2) sec 544 referred to                 Para 12
        1992 Supp (1) sec 664 referred to                 Para 13
        (1996) 1o sec 536            referred to          Para 14
                                                                       B
        (1999) 3 sec 414             referred to          Para 15

        c2000) 3 sec 733             referred to          Para 16

        c2000) 3 sec 736             referred to          Para 17
                                                                       c
        (2004) 2 sec 76              referred to          Para 18

        c2005) 6 sec 754             referred to          Para 19

        c2006) 5 sec 65              referred to          Para 20
        (1994) 2 sec 718             referred to          Para 20      D

        CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    1982-1983 of 2011.
         From the Judgment & Order dated 25.02.2009 of the High
                                                                       E
    Court ofUttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 69 (S/B)
    of 2007.

        Sudhir Kumar Consul, In-Person.

          Yashaj Singh Deora, Sarwa Mitter (for Mitter & Mitter Co.)   F
    for the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        H.L. DATIU, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                       G
         2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against
    the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2009 of the High Court
    of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition No. 69 of 2007. By the
1

  impugned order, the Court has rejected the Writ Petition filed
· by the appellant for granting certain reliefs which would include
                                                                       H,
    1124    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A claim for pensionary benefits under the New Pension Scheme,
  known as Allahabad Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations,
  1995 [hereinafter referred to as, "the 1995 Regulations"].

       3. The issue involved in the present appeals for our
B consideration is: Whether the appellant is eligible and entitled
  for the pensionary benefits under the Allahabad Bank
  Employees Pension Scheme, 1890 [hereinafter referred to as
  "Old Pension Scheme"] in terms of the Allahabad Bank Officers
  Service Regulations, 1979 [hereinafter referred to as "the 1979
C Regulations"].
        4. The factual matrix in brief is as under :

        The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the Nainital
   Branch of the Allahabad Bank, the respondent herein, on
0 21.02.1976. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted to the
  post of JMG-Scale-1 Officer Grade on 02.05.1983. The services
  of the appellant, after promotion, were governed by the 1979
   Regulations. The Regulation 46 of 1979 Regulations provides
  retirees an option of gratuity or pension in lieu thereof, and
E further, the pension benefits for the retirees opting for pension
  are available under the Old Pension Scheme. Pursuant to the
  Tripartite Memorandum of Settlement [hereinafter referred to as
  "the Tripartite Settlement"], among the management, workers
  and officers of the various banks dated 29.10.1993, the
  respondent formulated a draft/proposed Allahabad Bank
F Employees (Pension) Regulation 1993 [hereinafter referred to
  as "the draft/proposed 1993 Regulations"] vide Instruction
  Circular no. 3904 dated 06.09.1994. The draft/proposed 1993
  Regulations provided the option to the employees, who were
  on the rolls of the Bank as on 31.10.1993, to opt for pension
G as per the Old Pension Scheme plus Contributory Provident
  Fund [hereinafter referred to as "the CPF"). Accordingly, the
  appellant claimed pension under the Old Pension Scheme in
  terms of the draft/proposed 1993 Regulations on 30.11.1994.
  Subsequently, on 29.09.1995, the respondent formally adopted
H
  SUDHIR KUMAR CONSUL v. ALLAHABAD BANK 1125
              [H.L.DATTU, J.]

the 1995 Regulations pursuant to the Tripartite Settlement. The        A
1995 Regulations superseded the draft/proposed 1993
Regulations vide Circular No. 4318 dated 16.11.1995 by further
extending the benefit under the draft/proposed 1993
Regulations to the employees who were on the rolls of Bank
as on 29.09.1995 to opt for pension as per the Old Pension             B
Scheme plus CPF. Further, the 1995 Regulations, in express
terms, have validated the earlier options exercised by-the
employees in accordance with the draft/proposed 1993
Regulations. The appellant applied for the voluntary retirement
pursuant to the Allahabad Bank Employees Voluntary                     c
Retirement Scheme, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as "the VRS-
2000"], whichwas accepted on 12.04.2001 and the appellant
stood relieved from the services of the Bank on 30.04.2001.
After retirement, the appellant was offered gratuity under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the respondent vide letter
                                                                       0
dated· 01.09.2001, which the appellant declined to accept.
Subsequently, on 09.10.2001, the appellant made a request to
the competent authority for sanction of pension in lieu of gratuity,
but his request was rejected by the General Manager
(Personnel Administration), vide letter dated 13.11.2001 as not
maintainable on the ground that an officer employed or                 E
appointed after 01.07.1079 is ineligible for pension under the
Old Pension Scheme in view of Regulation 46 of the 1979
Regulations. In this backdrop, the appellant alternatively
requested the General Manager (Personnel Administration)
vide letter dated 05.03.2002 to accept his option for Pension          F
under the 1995 Regulations and further intimated his provisional
acceptance of the said gratuity of Rs. 2,36,449/- under protest,
which was not replied to by the respondent. Eventually, the
respondent vide Instruction Circular no. 7331 dated
04.06.2002, lowered down the eligibility criteria from 25 years        G
to 15 years for sanction of proportionate pension under Old
Pension Scheme to retirees under the VRS-2000. In view of
this, the appellant again requested vide letter dated 06.08.2002
to the competent authority for the grant of pension under the
                                                                       H
    1126   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A Old Pension Scheme and the same was rejected in terms of
  Regulation 46 of the 1979 Regulations. The appellant further
  made representations before the Chairman and Managing
  Director of the respondent vide letters dated 16.08.2006 and
  19.03.2007, which were rejected by the Assistant General
B Manager vide letter dated 05.04.2007 on the ground that the
  appellant was not eligible to claim pension under the Old
  Pension Scheme in terms of the 1979 Regulations. Being
  aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court of
  Uttarakhand by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the
C Constitution of India and the same was partly allowed by the
  judgment and order dated 25.02.2009, wherein the High Court
  directed the respondent to pay gratuity to the appellant as per
  Regulation 46(2) of the 1979 Regulations after adjusting the
  amount of gratuity already paid to the appellant in terms of
  Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The appellant, aggrieved by the
D Judgment and Order of the High Court in Writ Petition, fifed a
   Review Application, which was rejected vide Order dated
   31.03.2009. Aggrieved by these Orders, the appellant is before
   us in these appeals.

E       5. We have heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Consul, the
    appellant, who has appeared in person, and Shri Yashraj Singh
    Deora, learned counsel for the respondent - Bank.

        6. The appellant contends that he is entitled to claim the
F benefit of pension under the existing Old Pension Scheme in
  addition to CPF in view of exercise of his option in terms of
  the draft/proposed 1993 Regulations. The appellant submits that
  he is an officer governed by the 1979 Regulations and duly
  eligible for pension under the existing Old Pension Scheme in
G terms of the Regulation 46(1) of the 1979 Regulations. In other
  words, the appellant argued that he was the employee of the
  respondent on the appointed date as per the said Regulation
  46 (1). He further submits that the respondent has wrongly
  deprived him of his pensionary benefits under the Old Pension
  Scheme by misinterpreting Regulation 46 (1). In arguendo, the
H
   SUDHIR KUMAR CONSUL v. ALLAHABAD BANK 1127
                [H.L.DATTU, J.]
 appellant challenged the vires of Regulation 46 of 1979 A
 Regulations, as being beyond the Scope of Section 12 (2) of
 the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
 Undertaking) Act, 1970 [hereinafter referred to as "the Banking
 Act"] and in violation of the guarantee of equality before law and
 equal protection of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the B
 Constitution of India. The appellant submits that Section 12 (2)
 of the Banking Act duly protects the existing pensionary and
 other rights of the employee and the introduction of Regulation
 46 (1) of 1979 Regulations unjustifiably deprives the appellant
 of his existing pensionary right under the Old Pension Scheme. C
 The appellant further submits that the said Regulation 46 (1)
 creates an arbitrary and unreasonable distinction between the
 same class of officers of the respondent, merely on account of
 their date of appointment as employee with the respondent. In
 other words, the appellant argued that the said Regulation 46
 discriminates the officers appointed on and before 01.07.1979 D
 from those officers who are appointed, recruited or promoted
 after the said date.
      7. Shri Yashraj Singh Deora, learned counsel for
 respondent, submits that the appellant is not eligible to claim E
 any pension under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of
 Regulation 46 (1) of the 1979 Regulations as the appellant had
 admittedly become officer after 01.07.1979 on his promotion
 on 02.05.1983. It is also submitted that the appellant, prior to
 his promotion, was a Clerk with the respondent on the appointed F
 date in tenns of the said Regulation 46 (1). Hence, the appellant
 cannot claim any pensionary benefit under the Old Pension
 Scheme. In response to appellant's alternative submissions, the
 learned counsel for the respondent submits that Section 12 (2)
_of the Banking Act was introduced in 1970 after nationalization G
 of the Banks. Section 12 (2) of the Banking Act cannot be
 invoked by appellant as Regulation 46 of the 1979 Regulations
 was introduced on 01.07.1979 only for officers whereas the
 appellant became officer only in 1983 by way of promotion. In
 other words, the appellant, being a Clerk at the relevant time H
    1128    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A   when the said Regulation 46 was introduced as applicable to
    officers, cannot challenge its vires on the touchstone of Section
    12 (2) of the Banking Act. The learned counsel further submits
    that the Regulation 46 (1) of 1979 Regulations is in harmony
    with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
B      8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of
  the appellant in person and the learned counsel for the
  respondent-Bank. In our opinion, the appellant is not entitled to
  claim pensionary benefit in view of Regulation 46 (1) of the
  1979 Regulations. The said Regulation 46 (1) provides
C pensionary benefit under existing supplementary pension
  Scheme in lieu of gratuity only to those officers who were
  officers on the appointed date i.e. the officers who were
  appointed on or before 01.07.1979. Moreover, Provision 3 of
  the Old Pension Scheme stipulates that the officers who are
D recruited or promoted after 01.07.1979, i.e. the date of
  implementation of the 1979 Regulations, are not entitled for
  pension as per the said Regulations. It is an admitted fact that
  the appellant was working with the respondent as a Clerk on
  01.07.1979 and was promoted as an officer only in 1983.
E Therefore, the appellant is not eligible to claim any benefit under
  the Old Pension Scheme.

       9. It is well settled law that the vires of any subordinate
  legislation can be challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary,
F unreasonable and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  The 1979 Regulations were introduced with a view to
  standardize and provide comprehensive and compact set of
  rules in respect of wages and perquisites of the officers of the
  Bank. In furtherance of this object, Regulation 46 (1) of the 1979
  Regulations provides pension in lieu of gratuity only to the
G officers appointed prior to or on 01.07 .1979 and not to officers
  appointed, recruited or promoted thereafter. In this view, we are
  of the opinion that the said Regulation 46 (1) lays down a
  reasonable criteria for differentiation between th.a officers
  appointed prior to or on 01.07.1979 and after the said date.
H
   SUDHIR KUMAR CONSUL v. ALLAHABAD BANK 1129
               [H.L.DATTU, J.]
Hence the said Regulation 46 (1) is in consonance with the           A
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the fixing of
the cut-off date for granting retirement benefits such as gratuity
or pension under the different schemes incorporated in the
subordinate legislation, thereby, creating two distinct and
separate classes of employees is well within the ambit of Article    B
14 of the Constitution. The differential treatment of two sets of
officers appointed prior to the notified date would not offend
Article 14 of the Constitution. The cut off date may be justified
on the ground that additional outlay as involved or the fact that
under the terms of appointment, the employee was not entitled        c
to the benefit of pension or retirement.

   10. This Court, in Union of India v. P.N. Menon, (1994) 4
sec 68, has held:
    "8. Whenever the Government or an authority, which can D
    be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of
    the Constitution, frames a scheme for persons who have
    superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it
    is not always possible to extend the same benefits to one
    and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As E
    such any revised scheme in respect of post-retirement
    benefits, if implemented with a cut-off date, which can be
    held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article
    14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. It
    shall not amount to "picking out a date from the hat~ as F
    was said by this Court in the case of D.R. Nim v. Union
    of India, (1967) 2 SCR 325, in connection with fixation of
    seniority. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut-off date
    becomes imperative because the benefit has to be
    allowed within the financial resources available with the G
    Government."

    The Court further observed:
    "14 ... No scheme can be held to be foolproof, so as to
  • cover and keep in view all persons who were at one time          H
    1130     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 2 S.C.R.


A       in active service. As such the concern of the court should
        only be, while examining any such grievance, to see, as
        to whether a particular date for extending a particular
        benefit or scheme, has been fixed, on objective and
        rational considerations."
B
        11. In State Government Pensioners' Association v. State
  of A.P., (1986) 3 SCC 501, the Order in question provided that
  retirement gratuity may be one-third of the pay drawn at the time
  of retirement for every six-monthly service, subject to maximum
C of 20 months' pay limited to '30,000. This Order was made
  effective from 01.04.1978. The petitioners, who were
  government employees and had retired before 01.4.1978,
  contended that the gratuity, being a part and parcel of the
  pensionary benefits, they were also entitled to the same
  retrospectively. On behalf of the State, it was pointed out that
D the gratuity which had accrued to the petitioners prior to
  01.4.1978, was calculated on the then existing rules and pay,
  and such petitioners formed a distinct class, for the purpose
  of payment of gratuity, from others who retired after 01.04.1978,
  the date from which the revised pension rules were made
E applicable by the Government. This Court held that the upward
   revision of gratuity which took effect from a specified date i.e.
   1-4-1978 with prospective effect, was legal and not violative of
  Article 14 of the Constitution.

F        12. In Action Committee South Eastern Railway
    Pensioners v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 544, this
    Court has examined the concept of 'dearness pay', including
    the two options for retirement benefits given to the employees
    which had been framed fixing a cut-off date. This Court held:

G          ·12. . .. Learned counsel for the petitioners only
           submitted that if the formula adopted in the case of
           employees having retired after March 31, 1985 vide
           circular dated May 17, 1985 is applied in the case of the
           petitioners then it would make substantial difference in
H
  SUDHIR KUMAR CONSUL v. ALLAHABAD BANK                      1131
               [H.L.DATTU, }]
    the calculation of the amount of gratuity and commuted            A
    value of pension. As already discussed above no such
    claim can be allowed nor the same can be permissible
    on any principle of equality enshrined under Article 14
    of the Constitution inasmuch as the petitioners form a
    different class from those who were continuing in service         B
    on or after March 31, 1985. The petitioners of their own
    accord had opted for the choice given to them and the
    principle enunciated in D.S. Nakara case (1983) 1 sec
    305 cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners."
     13. In A// India Reserve Bank Retired Officers'                  C
Association v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 664, the
Retired Officers' Association of the Reserve Bank of India
questioned the validity of introduction of pension scheme in lieu
of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The bank employees,
who retired prior to 01.01.1986, had not been given benefit of        D
the said Pension Scheme. This Court held that the said cut-off
date was neither arbitrary nor artificial or whimsical. It was
further observed:

    "10 .... The underlying principle is that when the State          E
    decides to revise and liberalise an existing pension
    scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover
    granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily grant the benefit
    to a Section of the pensioners and deny the same to others
    by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified   F
    on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the
    object intended to be achieved. But when an employer
    introduces an entirely new scheme which has no
    connection with the existing scheme, different
    considerations enter the decision making process. One
    such consideration may be the financial implications of           G
    the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer
    to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb
    the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the
    employer would have to decide upon the extent of
                                                                      H
    1132    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A       applicability of the scheme."

                                                  (Emphasis added)

       14. In University Grants Commission v. Sadhana
    Chaudhary, (1996) 10 SCC 536, this Court has observed:
8
        "21 . ... It is settled law that the choice of a date as a basis
        for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary
        even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice
        unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the
c       circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there
        must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of
        fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its
        delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it
        is very wide off the reasonable mark."

D       15. In T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy, (1999) 3
    sec 414, the pension scheme was applied differently to
    persons who had retired from service before 01.07.1986, and
    those who were in employment on the said date. This Court
    held:
E
        "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
F       class. The workmen, who had retired after receiving all
        the benefits available under the Contributory Provident
        Fund Scheme, cease to be employees of the appelfant-
        Board w.e.f. the date of their retirement. They form a
        separate class."

G       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
H governed by different rules. They are governed by the old rules,
  SUDHIR KUMAR CONSUL v. ALLAHABAD BANK 1133
               [H.L.DATTU, J.]

i.e., the rules prevalent at the time when they retire. The two     A
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:                                                               B

    "In the case of Indian Ex-SeNices 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      C
    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         D
    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,      E
    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."
                                                                    F
     17. In State of Punjab v. J.L. Gupta, (2000) 3 SCC 736,
this Court reiterating the views expressed in Boota Singh
(supra), held:

    "5. The controversy involved in the present appeal and
    connected appeals is squarely covered by the aforesaid          G
    decision. The respondents are thus not entitled to claim
    benefits under the notification dated 9-7-1985 since the
    said benefits became available on a much later date to
    the retiring employees by reason of change in the rules
    relating to pensionary benefits. In this view, the judgment     H
    1134      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 2 S.C.R.


A       of the High Court cannot be sustained."

       18. In Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank
  Employees Welfare Assn., (2004) 2 SCC 76, this Court has
  held that, even for the purpose of effecting promotion, fixing of
8 a cut-off date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it
  offend Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court further observed:

        "32. If a cut-off date can be fixed, indisputably those who
        fall within the purview thereof would form a separate class.
        Such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the
C       object which the decision of the Bank to promote its
        employees seeks to achieve. Such classifications would
        neither fall within the category of creating a class within
        a class or an artificial classification so as to offend Article
         14 of the Constitution of India.
D
        33. Whenever such a cut-off date is fixed, a question
        may arise as to why a person would suffer only because
        he comes within the wrong side of the cut-off date, but,
        the fact that some persons or a Section of society would
        face hardship, by itself cannot be a ground for holding
E
        that the cut-off date so fixed is ultra vires Article 14 of the
        Constitution."

         19. In State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC
    754, this Court held:
F
         "37. In the instant case before us, the cut-off date has been
         fixed as 1-4-1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of
         financial constraints. Consequently, we reject the
         contention that fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary,
G        irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article
         14."
        20. In State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj, (2006)
    5 SCC 65, this Court held:

H          "17. We think that the contention is well founded. The only
  SUDHIR KUMAR CONSUL v. ALLAHABAD BANK 1135
              [H.L.DATTU, J.]
       ground on which Article 14 has been put forward by the             A
       teamed counsel for the respondent is that the fixation of
       the cut-off date for payment of the revised benefits under
       the two notifications concerned was arbitrary and it
       resulted in denying arrears of payments to certain
       Sections of the employees. This argument is no longer              B
       res integra. It has been held in a ca ten a of judgments 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."                                                    c
     21. We have sympathies for the appellant but, in a society
governed by Rule of law, sympathies cannot override the Rules
and Regulations. We may recall the observations made by this
Court while considering the issue of compassionate
appointment in public service. In Life Insurance Corporation of D
India v. Asha Ramachhandra Ambekar and Anr. (1994) 2
SCC 718, wherein the Court observed: "The High Courts and
the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction
impelled by sympathetic consideration.... Yielding to instinct
will tend to ignore the cold logic of law. It should be                   Ef
remembered that "law is the embodiment of all wisdom".
Justice according to law is a principle as old as the hills. The
Courts are to administer law as they find it, however,
inconvenient it may be. n
                                                                          F
     22. In view of the above discussion, the appeals fail and
are, accordingly, dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the
appellant, if he so desires, to exerCise his option to join the 1995
Regulations in terms of instruction Circular No. 11143/PA/2010-
11/27 dated 15.09.2010 within 30 days from today. If such an              G
option is exercised by the appellant, the respondents are
directed to consider the same sympathetically within 60 days
from the date of the option. Parties are directed to bear their
own costs.
D.G.                                           Appeals dismissed.         H