1. Respondent 1 retired from the service of the State of Punjab on 31-12-1982. Respondent 2 retired from the service of the State of Punjab on 31-10-1982. Their pensionary benefits were calculated as per the rules then existing

2. By a notification dated 9-7-1985, issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, it was decided that dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance sanctioned up to Consumer Price Index Level 568 will be treated as dearness pay, for purposes of calculating pension, gratuity/DCRC and terminal gratuity in respect of the employees retiring on or after 31-3-1985

3. By another circular dated 24-11-1988 the employees were allowed to accumulate earned leave up to 360 days. The existing employees were given an option, either to be governed by the existing rules or by the new decision, which option was exercisable within a period of four months from the date of issue of the above-mentioned circular. It further provided that encashment of leave at the time of retirement shall be admissible up to 240 days to those employees who opt for the revised orders contained in the circular letter. The circular letter further stated that the decision contained in that letter shall be effective from the date of issue except from the decision regarding encashment of leave which will be effective from 1-1-1986. The respondents were not given the benefit of both these changes because they had retired long prior to the coming into force of these changes. They filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming the benefits conferred by the notification of 9-7-1985 and the circular letter of 24-11-1988, basing their claim on the decision of this Court in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India

4. The High Court granted the reliefs to the respondents on the basis of a previous judgment of that Court in CWP No. 3921 of 1990 - Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 22-4-1991

5. When the appellants came before this Court by filing a special leave petition, they were granted special leave and a direction was issued to list the appeal along with Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 1997 arising out of SLP (C) No. 16040 of 1994. This appeal had been dismissed by this Court by a speaking order dated 17-12-1996. The order sets out that from the decision of the High Court in the writ petition (which decision was similar to the decision in the present case), a special leave petition was filed but was dismissed by this Court on 13-5-1993. Thereafter, the State Government filed an interlocutory application before the High Court for clarification of the High Courts judgment in that case. The clarification application was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 20-5-1994. The challenge in Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 1994 was to the dismissal of the clarification application by the High Court by its impugned order of 20-5-1984

6. This Court, therefore, held that since the main judgment of the High Court had become final, the same questions cannot be reagitated through the mode of an interlocutory application for clarification. It was on this ground that the appeal being Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 1994, was dismissed. The present appeal cannot be decided in the same fashion because this appeal challenges the main judgment of the High Court. The High Courts judgment and order impugned here dated 10-7-1991 has simply followed its earlier judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab decided on 22-4-1991. This judgment of 10-7-1991 is, therefore, not final between the parties and there is no question of any interlocutory application in this case having been filed before the High Court. Therefore, the reason for dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 6660 of 1994 is not applicable to the present case. The dismissal of this appeal is, therefore, not warranted

7. On merits we find that the retirement benefits which are claimed by the respondent are benefits which are conferred by subsequent orders/notifications. Therefore, persons who retired after the coming into force of these notifications and order are governed by different rules of retirement than those who retired under the old rules and were governed by the old rules. The two categories of persons, who retired were governed by two different sets of rules. They cannot, therefore, be equated. Further, granting of additional benefits has financial implications also. Hence, specifying the date for the conferment of such additional benefits cannot be considered as arbitrary

8. In the case of Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India this Court distinguished the decision in Nakara case and held that the ambit of that decision cannot be enlarged to cover all claims by retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree, irrespective of the date of retirement, even though the emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension be different. We need not cite other subsequent decisions which have also distinguished Nakara case. The latest decision is in the case of K. L. Rathee v. Union of India where this Court, after referring to various judgments of this Court, has held that Nakara case cannot be interpreted to mean that emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. The respondents are not entitled to claim benefits which became available at a much later date to retiring employees by reason of changes in the rules relating to pensionary benefits9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the original writ petition is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.