MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 25.7.2001 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming the revised salary for the period during which he was in the service of the respondent No. 2 the Life Insurance Corporation of India but resigned from the service later, has been denied and thus the writ petition stood dismissed.
(2.) . In order to appreciate the controversy it is relevant to state that the petitioner/appellant herein was serving as an Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the `LIC') where he continued till 6.10.99 and on that date he tendered his resignation to the Corporation which was accepted by the authorities vide order dated 22.6.2000. The LIC in the year 2000 issued a notification on 22.6.2000 revising the terms and conditions of service of Class III and Class IV employees whereby the scales of pay and other allowances of Class III employees were increased and the relevant Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 1 of the amended Rules 2000 laid down as follows:- "(3) These rules shall be applicable to those Class III and Class IV employees who were in whole time salaried service in the permanent establishment of the Corporation as on 1.8.1997." The petitioner/appellant felt aggrieved with the aforesaid Rule as this rule denied the benefit of revised pay scale to such employees who had resigned from the service whereas it allowed the scale to those who had retired from the service. This gave a reason to the appellant-herein to file a writ petition before the learned Single Judge wherein it was contended that the revised pay-scale having been allowed to be availed by retired employees, the same could not have been denied to those who had resigned from the service. The learned Single Judge was pleaded to reject this contention as it was held by the learned Single Judge that the persons who have retired from the service and the persons who resigned from the service, form a different class as the persons who retired from service had worked with the LIC till the date of their superannuation and the persons who resigned had not worked with the LIC for their full term but had left the services before attaining the age of superannuation. The learned Single Judge was therefore pleased to hold that the distinction drawn between the persons resigned and retired is based on reasonable classification of service rendered by the employee to the LIC. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge the classification made by the rule was based on intelligible differentia as equality between two unequals could not be legally enforced. The petitioner/appellant herein having felt aggrieved with the aforesaid view of the learned Single Judge, has preferred this appeal wherein it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the retired employees and the employees who resigned do not form a different class as both the categories were not in service when the notification granting revised pay scale had been issued making it applicable with retrospective effect. It has been argued that when the revised pay scale has been allowed to be availed by the retired employee, the same could not have been denied merely because the employees had resigned from the job as the employees who resigned claimed the revised pay scale by which they had rendered their services while in service and they are only claiming the amount which the employees were held entitled with retrospective effect from the year 1997 when the petitioner/appellant was already in the service of the LIC. Having considered the matter, we do not feel inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant. While agreeing with the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge holding therein that the retired employees and the resigned employees form two different classes of persons due to which the writ petition was dismissed holding it to be a reasonable classification, we further find the reason to add that the service conditions of the employees were improved and as a consequence of the same, the notification came into existence in the year 2000 granting benefit of the revised pay scale with retrospective effect from 1997 to such employees who were in service and was obviously not a measure for benefiting those who were not in service by virtue of their resignation. The right of the employees to get revised pay scale therefore emanates from the day when the notification came into existence that is the year 2000. On this date, the appellant admittedly was not in service of the LIC and therefore the benefit of notification cannot be allowed to be availed by an employee who was not in the employment of the LIC when the notification came into existence. It is no doubt true that the notification has been made applicable with retrospective effect from the year 1997 but the right to claim this, obviously could be held to be availed by those employees only who were in services of the LIC in the year 2000 and therefore it cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the benefit of this notification should be made applicable even to those employees who had no nexus or lien with the Corporation on the date when the notification came into existence. Thus concurring with the view of the learned Single Judge, the aforesaid reason is an additional one for not entertaining the plea of the appellant. We thus find no substance in this appeal and hence it stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. ;