Service Law – Grant of benefit of revised pension – Creation of two classes of pensioners – When discriminatory – Govt. of Manipur issued office memorandum dated 21.04.1999 revising the quantum of pension, however, it provided that those Govt. employees who retired on or after 01.01.1996 shall be entitled to the revised pension at a higher percentage and those who retired before 01.01.1996 shall be entitled at a lower percentage – Challenged before the Single Judge of the High Court –Allowed– Set aside by Division Bench –Held: State of Manipur has adopted the CCS (Pension) Rules to be applicable to the State of Manipur and also came out with the 1977 Pension Rules– All the government servants retired in accordance with the provisions of the Pension Rules and after completing qualifying service are entitled to the pension/ pensionary benefits– Therefore, all the pensioners form only one homogeneous class – Issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India – Division Bench clearly erred in not following the said decision – On merits also, there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz. one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension, solely on the ground of financial constraint – Such classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension– All the pensioners form one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules – Art.14 ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws – Art.16 permits a valid classification – A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination– Whenever a cut-off date, as in the present case is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied – Object and purpose for revising the pension was due to the increase in the cost of living – State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cut-off date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits– Such classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension, hence is unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore rightly set aside by the Single Judge – All the pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement, viz. pre-1996 retirees shall be entitled to revision in pension at par with pensioners who retired post-1996 – Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 – r.49 – Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 16. Constitution of India– Arts.14 and 16 – Twin test for valid discrimination/classification – When not satisfied – Discussed. Constitution of India – Art.16 – Test for valid classification – Held: Test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved.