Manojit Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Bikash, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Saikia, Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 (A) and 2. Also heard Mr. A. Chetry, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1(B) and Mr. N.C. Das, Senior Counsel representing respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Section 3 of the Gauhati University (Amendment) Act, 2013 inserted a new Section 36A in the parent Act i.e. The Gauhati University Act, 1947 extending the benefit of pension to the existing permanent employees of the University, both teaching and non-teaching, who entered service before 01.02.2005. The eligibility of such pension was made effective from the 1st day of April, 2013. The petitioner herein entered service in Gauhati University as Lower Division Assistant on 09.04.1951 and retired on attaining age of superannuation on 30.09.1988 as Office Superintendent by availing the benefit of Gratuity and Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). He is aggrieved of the word "existing" in the newly inserted Section 36A(1) as it goes to deny him the benefit of pension. In this regard, prayer made in the writ petition is for an appropriate direction to severe the word "existing" from Section 36A(1) and to declare the petitioner's eligibility for pension with effect from 01.04.2013. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 36 A(1), as brought in by the Gauhati University (Amendment) Act, 2013.

"36 A(1) The existing permanent employees of the University, both teaching and non-teaching who have entered service before 1-2-2005, shall be eligible for pension on their retirement from the service of the University with effect from the 1st day of April, 2013."

2. The petitioner alleges Discrimination, in that, the retired employees of Gauhati University like him is sought to be treated differently from the retired employees of Dibrugarh University where the offending word "existing" do not appear in the newly inserted section 30A(1), as brought about by the Dibrugarh University (Amendment) Act, 2013. In case of Dibrugarh University, all permanent employees, both teaching and non-teaching, who entered service before 01.02.2005 have been made eligible for pension on their retirement, with effect from 01.04.2013. Whether the ground of challenge is sustainable in law or not, the same will be addressed at a later stage of this judgment. First, certain basic facts having utmost significance for adjudication of this case needs to be noticed.

3. As indicated above, the petitioner retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 30.09.1988. During the period of service, the Gauhati University had framed the Retirement Benefit Rules, 1974 (in short the Rules, 1974) by virtue of power conferred under Section 36(1) of the Gauhati University Act, 1947. The said Rules was put into force with effect from 01.04.1974. Rule 3(i) of the Rules, 1974 stipulated that it shall apply to all employees of the Gauhati University, both academic and non-academic, other than part-time employees, re-employed pensioners, deputationists, temporary and daily- wage staff. At Clause (a) thereof, it was prescribed that those employees who joined service of the University before 01.04.1974 shall be entitled to opt for one of the two alternative schemes set out in Appendices 'A' and 'B' to the Rules. Whereas the scheme under Appendix-A pertained to General Provident Fund -cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Rule, Appendix-B pertained to Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity. From the pleadings on record, which is not controverted, the petitioner who was originally under the CPF Scheme, did not opt for availing benefit under Appendix-A in terms of the Rules, 1974. He retired from service by getting the benefit under the CPF Scheme with Gratuity. Pertinent to note, there is no whisper in the writ petition as regards the Retirement Benefit Rules, 1974 and to the two options made available under Appendix-A and B thereof. The Rules