JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondents to grant pension in terms of the Memorandum no. 3942 dated September 3, 2009 upon a declaration that the clause in the said memo denying extension of benefits under the said memorandum to the Panchayat employees who have retired on or after the first day of January, 2006 but before the issuance of the said memorandum is ultra vires the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated August 6, 2014 by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension was turned down by filing this writ petition.

2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows-

3. Petitioner was initially appointed in the post of Job Assistant on September 8, 1980 at Dasgram No.4 Gram Panchayat (for short “the Panchayat”) and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Secretary of the said Panchayat in the year 2006. He retired from service on superannuation on March 31, 2009 after rendering service for about 28 years and 6 months. The Government of West Bengal introduced a pension scheme for the Panchayat employees in the year 1985 and the petitioner at the time of retirement was governed by the provisions of the Death Cum Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1985 (for short “1985 Scheme”). The pay scale of the petitioner was revised in terms of the memorandum no. 854 dated February 27, 2009 which came into force on the first day of January, 2006. The Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of West Bengal issued a memorandum no. 3942 dated September 3, 2009 thereby revising the pension/ family pension, gratuity and commutation of pension of post 01.01.2006 pensioners of Panchayat bodies. Petitioner applied for grant of full pensionary benefit before the Director, Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and such prayer of petitioner was rejected by order of the Director, Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance dated August 6, 2014 which was modified subsequently by issuing a corrigendum dated October 30, 2014. The claim of the petitioner for full pension was rejected vide orders dated 06.08.2014 read with 30.10.2014 as he superannuated prior to the date of issuance of the memorandum no. 3942 dated 03.09.2009. Petitioner alleged discrimination in making a further classification within a homogeneous class. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. The stand of the State in the affidavit-in-opposition is that the Government is entrusted to decide and frame rules and regulations for its employees and the Finance Department is the sole authority to sanction the financial benefit keeping in mind the availability of financial resources. It was further stated therein that the Panchayat Department issued the memorandum dated September 3, 2009 with concurrence of Finance Department order no. 460-F(Pen) dated September 1, 2009. It was contended therein that the question of discrimination does not arise as the memorandum was issued with cut-off date of implementation considering all aspects including financial resources. It was further stated therein that the memo dated September 3, 2009 is prospective in its application and the employees who retired prior to the issuance of the memo dated September 3, 2009 are not entitled to any benefit under the said Memorandum.

5. Mr. Das learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the pensioners belong to a homogeneous class and a further classification on the basis of the date of retirement for applicability of the revised pension scheme is not permissible. According to Mr. Das, the differential treatment to pensioners on the basis of the date of retirement for the purpose of extending the benefits of revised pension is unconstitutional as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The plinth of argument of Mr. Das is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of