MANMOHAN, J

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 6 June, 2008 whereby the learned Single LPA 704 /2008 Page 1 of 11 Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellants being W.P.(C) 17825-28/2005. It is pertinent to mention that the appellants who were pre 1st January, 1986 retirees from various public sector banks, had challenged in the aforesaid writ petition, the cut off date of 1st January, 1986 for applicability/eligibility to the benefits under the Pension Regulations introduced by the respondents. The impugned applicability clause as contained in the Pension Scheme of one of the respondents, namely respondent no. 7, is reproduced hereinbelow :-

“(c) employees who were in service as on the 1st January, 1986 (excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement) and had retired before the 1st November, 1993, provided they exercise option to be governed by the said Regulations and refund within such period as specified, the Employer’s contribution to Provident Fund with interest received by them from the Corporation, together with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of drawl till the date of payment.”

2. The learned Single Judge in his impugned order held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was no longer res integra. Learned Single Judge held that the Supreme Court in the case of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assn. & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr., 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 664 had upheld the cut off date of 1st January, 1986 for eligibility/applicability of Pension Regulations to employees. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court noticed that the scheme introduced by the Pension Regulations was not a liberalisation of the existing scheme but was a new scheme in respect whereof the retired employees had no legal vested right and, therefore, the executive/management could restrict the same in application to a particular date having regard to the fact situation in which it was introduced. Additionally the Supreme Court held that if the Central Provident Fund retirees were not admitted to the new scheme, they could not make any grievance as they had already collected their retiral benefits under the CPF scheme, that means, the social security plan at the time of their retirement. Lastly, the Supreme Court held that upon the said payment, their relationship with employer had snapped and there was no continuing obligation inter se.

3. Learned Single Judge further pointed out that a similar cut off date in the Punjab National Bank Pension Scheme, 1995 was challenged by way of a writ petition before the Supreme Court. The said writ petition being W.P.(C) 467/1997 (All India PNB Retired Officers Assocn. Vs. UOI & Ors.) was dismissed by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court vide order dated 17November, 1998. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow :-

“No orders on application for intervention.

This Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Assn. & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr. (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 664). That judgment has rightly noted the distinction that Nakara’s case [1983 (1) SCC 30] does between a continuing scheme and a new scheme. So far as the judgments in M.C. Dhingra Vs. UOI & Ors. [1995 (7) SCC 634] and Dhan Raj & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. [JT 1998 (2) SCC 590] are concerned, they apply to those who are pensioners and who are treated differently so that they draw pension at different rates.

The Writ Petition is dismissed. But for the fact that the petitioners are retired employees, we would have made an order of exemplary costs.”

4. Consequently, the learned Single Judge after relying upon the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court and the principle of adherence to precedents dismissed the appellants’ writ petition.

5. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for appellants urged that in view of the subsequent recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission wherein the disparit