be said that the date, 30.9.1977, was picked out in an arbitrary or irrational manner, without proper application of mind. The option given to employees, who retired on or after 30.9.1977 but not later than 30.4.1979, to exercise an option to get their pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity calculated by excluding the element of dearness pay as indicated in the aforesaid office memorandum or to get it included in their pension and death cum-retirement gratuity, was not an exercise to create a class within a class. The decision having a nexus with the price index level at 272, which it reached on 30.9.1977, was just and valid. It has been rightly pointed out that respondents had never been in receipt of dearness pay and as such the office memorandum in question could not have been applied to them. Similarly, the encashment of leave was a new scheme introduced which could not have been extended retrospectively to respondents, who had retired before the introduction of the said scheme. Same can be said even in respect of family pension scheme which was earlier contributory, but with effect from 22.9.1977, the scheme was made non-eligible for the said benefit and no question of refunding the amount, which had already been contributed by them, did arise.”
