As per case facts, retired employees of a transport corporation challenged the lower rate of dearness relief (DR) compared to dearness allowance (DA) for serving employees, arguing that both benefits ... serve the same purpose of mitigating inflation and should have uniform enhancement rates. The High Court found this differential treatment discriminatory. The State and the corporation appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether a higher rate for enhancing DA for serving employees than DR for retired employees is permissible when both are linked to a common inflation index and share the same objective. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed that such differential rates are arbitrary and violate Article 14, as inflation affects both groups equally, and no rational nexus justifies the distinction in enhancement rates when the decision is to increase allowances based on inflation. The appeals were dismissed.