Pensioners form a homogeneous class and cannot be micro-classified by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criterion for the purpose of grant of revised pension.

1. - This writ petition has been filed by an Ex Employee of the Rajasthan High Court who has superannuated on 14.11.69 on completion of the age of fifty five years. At the time of superannuation, he was holding the post of Asstt. Registrar and his pay on that date was Rs. 575/- basic plus Rs. 120/- D.A., total Rs. 695/- In view of the terms of Rule 256 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 which govern the Computation of the pension, the petitioner was granted pension by computing the average emoluments of years preceding the date of retirement and by excluding the D.A. According to Rule 256 at the relevant time, the pension was 30/80 of average emoluments with the maximum of Rs. 8100/-. on 18.2.71, Rule 256-A was inserted in the Rules by a notification issued by the State Govt. which came into force from 1.4.70. By the notification, the computation of the pension was liberalised and it was ordered that the computation of pension will be on the basis of the last drawn emoluments instead-of three years average emoluments. This change in the rules was made effective from 1.4.70. Consequently, the benefit of the revised pension was denied to the pensioners who had retired before 1.4.70. The formula of computing the pension i.e. 30/80 of the average emoluments and the maximum of Rs. 8100/- was kept intact. Section 250-B defines the term emoluments with a non-obstante clause which was inserted with effect from 1.6.69 and was made effective from 1.9.68. Later, by inserting Rule 250-C (3), the definition of emoluments for the purpose of computing pension was revised to include dearness pay in addition to pay as defined in Rule 7(24) of the Raj. Service Rules. This benefit however was restricted to only those who retired on or after 31.3.70. It is alleged that the computation of pension formula was liberalised and the pension was revised upward first by issuing Govt. instructions dated 10.1.73 and thereafter by inserting Rule 2-250-C vide notification dated 13.6.78, according to which the Govt. Servant who was officiating on another higher appointment while retaining lien on a substantive post, the officiating pay drawn before retirement was to form the basis for computation of existing retirel benefits in case of such Govt. Servants. This upward revision or change in the pension computation formula although published on 10.1.73 but was made effective from 1.4.73 and was made applicable to those who retired after 10.1.73 Rule 250-C(3) was inserted vide notification dated 2.12.74 whereby the last pay drawn on officiating basis was made the basis for calculation of the pension in case of those Govt. servants who retired on or after 31.10.74. The formula of computation of pension on the basis of 30/80 of the service period was revised to 33/80 with effect from 31.10.74. The benefit of Section 156(c) of the Raj. service Rules which Was originally made applicable to only those Govt. employees retiring on or after 31.10.74 was extended by a notification dated 2.9.85 to all pensioners with effect from 1.4.79. In the meanwhile the judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 Supreme Court Cases 304 was rendered by their lordships of the Supreme Court and this gave cause of action to claim higher pension and the benefits of upward revisions of the pension and, therefore, he made representations to the Director of Pension but he was told that he has retired prior to 1.4.70 and, therefore, these benefits cannot be extended to him. The benefits which have been extended to him on 31.3.79 under the order of the Govt. dated 2.9.85 and the benefits of the upward revised pension do not fully serve the purpose because his emolument have not been calculated according to the revisions made in the Rules. His last pay should be calculated on the basis of all these changes which have been made in the years 1970, 1973. and 1978 and thereafter his last pay drawn should be fixed and the benefits should be extended to him with effec