Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. - In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Mr. R.P. Khosla, a former Judge of this court, seeks a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of cash equivalent to the leave salary for the period of leave due to him including the dearness allowance, and a direction to the respondents to pay the amount to the petitioner forthwith. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to pay full pension to the petitioner with effect from 29.3.1975 and the arrears due to him with interest at 12% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. 2. First the factual matrix : 3. The petitioner retired as a Judge of this Court on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.3.1967. Thereafter, he served as an ad hoc Judge from 14.7.1967 to May, 1968. During this period of service leave accruded to the petitioner. The conditions of service of the Judges of the High Courts are determined and regulated by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called `the Act'). In exercise of powers conferred by Section 24 of the Act, the Central Government has framed the High Court Judges Rules, 1956, (for short `the Rules'). Rule 2 of the rules provides that the conditions of services of a Judge of a High Court for which no provision has been made in the Act, shall be, and shall form the commencement of the Constitution be deemed to have been determined by the rules for the time being applicable to a member of the Indian Administrative Service holding the rank of Secretary to the Government of the State in which the principal seat of the High Court is situated, provided that in the case of a Judge of the High Court of Delhi and a Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh the conditions of service shall be determined by the rules for the time being applicable to a member of the Indian Administrative Service on deputation to the Government of India holding the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India stationed at New Delhi. 4. No provision with regard to encashment of un-utilized leave on the date of retirement of a Judge of the High Court has been made in the Act or the Rules. Consequently, as per provision on Rule 2 ibid, in the case of a Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the conditions of service have to be determined" by the rules for the time being applicable to the member of the Indian Administrative Service on deputation to the Government of India stationed at New Delhi. All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 (for short `the Leave Rules') make a provision for matters relating to leave etc. of the members of the All India Services. Rule 20B of these rules reads as under :- "20-B. Payment of Cash equivalent of leave salary - (1) The Government shall suo motu sanction to a member of the Service under sub-rule (i) of rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, having attained the age of 58 years on or after the 30th September, 1977, the cash equivalent to leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit on the date of his retirement, subject to a maximum of 180 days. (2) The cash equivalent of leave salary payable to a member of the service under sub-rule (1) above shall also include dearness allowance admissible to him on the leave salary at the rates in force on the date of retirement, and it shall be paid in one lump sum, as a one time settlement. (3) The city compensatory allowance and the house rent allowance shall not be included in calculating the cash equivalent of leave salary under this rule. (4) From the cash equivalent so worked out no deduction shall be made on account of pension and pensionary equivalent of other retirement benefits. (5) A member of the service who retires from service on attaining the age of compulsory retirement while under suspension shall be paid the cash equivalent of leave salary under sub-rule (1) above in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit on the date of his superannuation, provided that in the opinion of the authority competent to order reinstatement, the member of the service has been fuly exonerated and the suspension was wholly unjustified". 5. In accordance with the provisions of the above-quoted rule, the petitioner on his retirement in March, 1967, was entitled to the payment of cash equivalent to the leave salary in respect of period of earned leave at his credit on the date of his retirement subject to a maximum of 180 days. However, the respondents did not pay the petitioner the amount due to him on account of his un-utilized earned leave. This benefit was denied to some other retied Judges and Chief Justices of various High Courts. The action was challenged. One of the cases Union Of India v. Gurnam Singh., AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1265, was ultimately decided by the Apex Court. It was held : "A retired Judge of the High Court is entitled to the payment of the case equivalent of leave salary in respect of the earned leave at his credit on the date of his retirement in accordance with the provisions of R. 20B of the All India Services (Leave) Rules (1955) read with R. 2 of the High Court Judges Rules (1956)". The facility of encashment of leave has been denied to the petitioner, as per averments in paras 4 and 5 the written statement of the respondents on the plea that it was available to only those Judges who had retired on or after 30.9.1977. This facility, according to the respondents, was extended with effect from 30.9.1977 and the Judges who retired prior to 30.9.1977 are not entitled to leave encashment. 6. The second grievance of the petitioner is that in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, the pension admissible to the petitioner was calculated and actually one half of that pension equal to Rs. 5,615/- per annum was commuted. As a consequence of that commutation, the petitioner was paid pension at lower rate i e. Rs. 467.92 P. per month. The amount of commuted pension was thus recovered/adjusted by the Government a few years viz; 12 years. In spite of that, the petitioner still continues to get the pension at the lower rate of Rs. 467.92 P. whereas actually he is entitled to the payment of pension at the same rate at which it is being paid to those in whose case there was no commutation. Sustenance for this submission is sought from a letter of the Government of India dated 20.3.1986 which reads as under :- "I am glad to inform you that Government have taken a decision in the matter of recovery from pension towards commuted value of pension. The decision is as follows : "(1) Recovery from pension payable every month towards commuted value of pension will stop on the completion of 15 years from the date of retirement on superannuation or on the pensioner completing the age of 70 years, whichever is later. (ii) The formulation will apply to all civilian pensioners in whose case the age of retirement on superannuation is 58 years and the personnel of Armed Forces in whose case the retirement age varies in accordance with the colour service prescribed for the rank (attaining the age of 37/38 years or more). (iii) Government have taken this decision as an act of goodwill to pensioners and to extend to them some measure of relief in the evening of their lives. It is sincerely believed that there will be no further demand on this issue and that the pensioners will accept the decision of the Government without dissent or reservation. (iv) The decision will take effect prospectively (from April 1, 1986)". It is the case of the petitioner that in accordance with the above decision he has become entitled to the payment of full pension from the date he attained the age of 70 years which in the present case falls on 29.3.1975. 7. For facility of retiring benefit like pension, retired Judges form one homegeneous class. They cannot be classified in two categories on the basis of a fortuitous circumstance like the date of retirement. The benefit provided under rule 2b of the leave rules cannot rationally and legitimately be confined only to those Judges who retired after 30.9.1977. This benefit cannot be withheld from those Judges who happened to retire prior to this date. Such a treatment will attract the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which does not permit any invidious discrimination amongst persons similarly situated and belonging to the same class. It is not necessary to dilate on this principal because the matter stands settled by binding precedents. The apex Court in D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130, held : "That is the end of the journey. With the expending horizons of socio-economic justice, the Socialist Republic and Welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria : `being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date' for being eligible for the liberalized pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rationable principal and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalized pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalized pension scheme of `being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date' in impugned memoranda, exhibits P-1 and P-2, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down". This principal was applied by Allahabad High Court in Bidhubhushan Malik (dead) retired Chief Justice Allahabad High Court and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Allahabad 209, in the context of the Act. The Act was amended by the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 1976. The amending Act came into force on March 18, 1976. However, some provisions of the amending act were deemed to have come into force on October 1, 1974. This included the provision for a liberalized pension admissible to Judges and Chief Justices of the High Courts. Para 10 of Ist Schedule introduced by the Amending Act of 1976 provided that the pension at enhanced rate shall be payable to such Judges only who had retired on or after October 1, 1974. This provision was challenged on the ground that the classification of Judges on the basis of the date of retirement for conferment of liberalised pensionary benefit was arbitrary and discriminatory. Reliance was particularly placed on the ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara's case (supra) The Division Bench allowed the writ petition and held that the Act as amended shall be read down and in para 10 of the Ist Schedule, the words, 'and who had retired on or after Ist day of October, 1974' are unconstitutional and are struck down. It was declared that the Judges of the High Court are entitled to revised pension irrespective of the date of retirement. The date of October 1, 1974 continued to be relevant as being one from which the liberalized pension became operative irrespective of the date of retirement and hence there was no question of payment of arrears of pension for the period preceding October 1, 1974. This view was upheld by the final Court on appeal in Union of India v. Bidhubhushan Malik and others, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1177. This view was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in N.L. Adhyankar and others v. Union of India, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1247. The above principles are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the dicta in Gurnam Singh's case (supra) the petitioner is entitled to the payment of cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of period at his credit on the date of his retirement subject to a maximum of 180 days. The date of petitioner's retirement has no bearing on the petitioner's rights to get this facility. 8. Similarly, the petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit conferred by letter dated 20.3.1986. Clause 4 of the letter which reads," the decision will take effect prospectively from April 1, 1986" is unconstitutional and is liable to be struck down. The petitioner is entitled to receive full pension on the completion of 15 years from the date of retirement on superannuation or on his completion the age of 70 years whichever is later. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner cash equivalent to the leave salary (including dearness allowance admissible to him on the leave salary) at the rate in force on the date of retirement, in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit (on the date of his retirement) subject to a maximum of 180 days. They are further directed to pay the petitioner full pension with effect from the date when he completed 15 years from the date of retirement or when he attained the age of 70 years, whichever is later. Cash equivalent to the leave salary as also arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be payable to the petitioner within three months. Petition allowed.