JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for review of the judgment and order dated 28.04.2016, passed by this Court in WP(C) 61/2011.

3. The respondents were the writ petitioners in the said WP(C) 61/2011. In the writ petition, the case of the respondents herein, in brief, is that the Govt. of Assam constituted Pay Commission in the year 2008, which submitted its report on 15.10.2009. The Govt. of Assam by notification dated 26.10.2009 constituted a committee to examine the report of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008. In due course, the Govt. decided to implement the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, by virtue of clause 42(A)(i) of the report under heading “General Decisions”, it was indicated that no arrear shall be paid to employees who retired during the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2009. However, it is submitted at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notional benefit was granted to those employees and therefore, only the payment of arrear for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2009 was not paid. However, the employees, who retired from 01.04.2009 onwards got such benefit.

4. Accordingly, this Court took note of the distinction that was created between two classes of retired employees, firstly, those who were retired prior to 01.01.2006, prior to the revised pay structure coming into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006, and secondly, those who were retired after 01.01.2006 onwards and accordingly, on the premise that the Supreme Court of India in the case of D.S.Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 held that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, pensioners formed a class and accordingly, it was held that a probationary class cannot be arbitrarily divided by fixing a eligibility criteria for the purpose of pension and accordingly, this Court also held that Article 14 was attracted when equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis, and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed in terms of the prayer made therein.

5. It may be mentioned that the facts which were presented in the writ petition was not disputed.

6. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 28.24.2016, passed by this court in WP(C) 61/2011 was against the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 754 and accordingly, there was an error apparent on the face of record. It is submitted that there is no dispute with the ratio laid down in the case of D.S. Nakara(supra), which was decided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India. However, in a subsequent Division Bench judgment in the case of Amar Nath Goyal(supra), the Supreme Court of India had considered the case of D.S.Nakara(supra)and by referring to various case laws on the point, held that the fixing of cut-off date on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints, the contention that fixing of the cut-off date as 01.04.1995 was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14, was rejected. Hence it is submitted that in the present case in hand, as the Govt. had fixed a cut-off date, from which the benefit of enhanced pension would be available to the employees, who retired between 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2009, but by giving them notional benefits comes out a situation which is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Amar Nath Goyal (supra). Hence, it is submitted that this was an appropriate case to exercise review jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Reference is also made to the judgment and order dated 23.02.2012, passed in WP(C) 4920/2016, Sri Biraj Choudhury & Ors. Vs. The Sta