The main legal point established in the judgment is that policy decisions related to cut-off dates for retirement benefits are beyond the purview of judicial review unless found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of statutory provisions.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Central administrative Tribunal dated 30th December, 2002 by which the application of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay him the gratuity pension commuting valued of pension together with appropriate dearness allowance obtainable since 1993 to December, 1995 and consolidated pension of Rs. 5129/- per month with interest. He also claimed for some other relief.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner stood retired from service as assistant Branch Officer on 30th June, 1993 and was paid the retrial benefit as admissible to him according to the Rules. Petitioner raised the dispute before the learned Tribunal that pension and other retrial benefits should have been determined and paid to him taking dearness allowances with pay as has been paid to other retirees who retired after 1. 1. 1996. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that taking the decision to merge with any part of dearness allowance with pay for all purposes of determining the retrial benefits is a policy decision of the government, which is taken after considering so many factors and the Tribunal was ill equipped to take a decision in such matters. Nor the Tribunal could interfere with policy decision taken by the Government unless there is a clear cut case on arbitrariness and malaflde. Hence, this petition.

( 3 ) SHRI Kauser petitioner-in-person submitted that the decision taken by the Government is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of legitimate explanation, as it had been made applicable in favour of certain persons with a particular cut-off date, i. e. , 1. 1. 1996, and therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be reversed.

( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 5 ) SO, far as the challenge to the cut-off-date is concerned, the Court should not forget that while fixing the cut-off date, the Authority has to consider various aspects of the case and there is very limited scope of judicial interference in such matters. It is settled proposition of law that a cut-off date can be introduced, but it is not permissible to do in such an artificial manner that it may discriminate the similarly situated persons. Cut-off date may be introduced by creating a fiction but while doing so, the consequences must be examined thoroughly and the date must have some nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Generally, it should be prospective but may have retrospective effect also. Consideration of financial constraints on public exchequer etc. arc good and valid reasons for fixing particular cut-off date by the legislature directly or by the executive instructions.

( 6 ) THE issue has been considered by the Honble Supreme Court time and again in a large number of cases and some of which are Jaila Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , AIR 1975 sc 1436; D. S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130; Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , AIR 1985 SC 1367; U. P. M. T. S. N. A. Samiti, Varanasi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , 1987 (2) SCC 453; Krishna Kumar v. Union of India and Anr. , air 1990 SC 1782; State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, AIR 1991 SC 1743; All india Reserve Hank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1992 SC 767; t. S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to the Government of India, (1993) 2 SCC 174; Union of India and Ors. v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 2750; M. C. Dhingra v. Union of India and Ors. . 1996 (7) SCC 564; University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary and Ors. , (1996) 10 scc 536; State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Amrit Lal Gandhi and Ors. , AIR 1997 SC 782; rabindranath Mukhopadhyay v. Coal India Ltd. and Anr. , (1997) 4 SCC 252; State of Haryana v. Rai Chand Jain and Ors. , 1997 SCC 2621. Union of India and Ors. v. Lieut. (Mrs.) E