1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. S. Gopinathan, J.--Since the issue involved in these connected Writ Appeals is one and the same, these appeals are disposed of by this common Judgment. The appellants are common in all the appeals. The respondents were employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The appellants represent the Board. The respondents retired from the service of the Board on various dates subsequent to 1-7-2003. After their retirement, pay revision was implemented. Consequent to the pay revision, orders were issued revising pension and other related benefits. Ext.P-1 produced in W.P.(C) No.37707/2009, against the Judgment of which W.A.No. 1702/2010 is filed, is the Pay Revision Order dated 11-11-2008. As per Clause 6.1 of Ext.P-1, the maximum amount of DCRG was raised from Rs. 2,80,000/- to Rs. 3,30,000/- to those who retired on or after 1-8-2006. For those who retired before 1-8-2006 the limit of DCRG was retained at Rs. 2,80,000/-. As per Clause 7.1 the existing rate of 1/3rd of the basic pension for commutation was enhanced to 40% based on the revised pay in the case of those who retired on or after 1-9-2007. For those who retired from 1-7-2003 to 31-8-2007, only 1/3rd of the pension admissible on the pre-revised pay was allowed to be commuted. In other way, the respondents were declared not entitled to commute the pension admissible on the revised pay. Aggrieved by Ext.P-1, the respondents moved the Writ Petitions. They would allege that the cut-off date mentioned earlier is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and sought for quashing the same. They further sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants to revise the commuted value of pension and to grant DCRG in par with those who retired subsequent to the dates mentioned earlier.

2. The learned Single Judge, though found that it may be possible for the Board to justify a cut-off date and denial of revised benefits to those who retired subsequent to the cut-off dates, in the light of the decision in D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), found that the cut-off dates mentioned earlier are unsustainable. Consequently, Clauses 6.1, 7.1 and 7.2 in Ext.P-1 were quashed to the extent it discriminated the employees on the basis of their dates of retirement and directed the appellants to extend the benefit of revised DCRG and commutation of pension uniformly to the respondents without discrimination on the basis of their date of retirement. Assailing the above judgment, these Writ Appeals were filed.

3. We have heard senior Advocate N.N. Sugunapalan, the standing counsel appearing for the appellants in six appeals as well as Sri Pulikool Abubacker, Senior Standing Counsel appearing in W.A.No. 1052/2011 and Advocate Sri P. M. Pareeth appearing for the respondents. We had also perused the argument notes submitted by Adv. Sri P. M. Pareeth.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as against Nakara's case (supra) canvassed our attention to the decisions reported in, Union of India Vs. P.N. Menon and others, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. R. Veeraswamy and Ors, State of Punjab and Others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Others, Union of India (UOI) Vs. S.R. Dhingra and Others, and Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. N. Subbarayudu and others (2008) 14 S.C.C. 702. In P. N. Menon's case (supra), at para 8 it is held as follows:

As 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 was said by this Court in the case of D. R. Nim v. Union of India 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 Government.

In T. N. Electricity Board's case (