Four recipients of public assistance under the Aid to Families with Depend *112 ent Children (AFDC) program in California brought this class action against the Director of the Department of Social Welfare, State of California, to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief with regard to the assertedly unlawful manner in which that program is being administered.

In their first two claims, plaintiffs alleged that the state is out of compliance with section 402(a) (23) of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 602 (a) (23), added by section 213(b) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967, 81 Stat. 821 , 898, pertaining to AFDC benefits. In their remaining three claims, plaintiffs alleged that defendant was proceeding in a way that deprived them of equal protection and due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

On September 11, 1970, the district court entered a partial summary judgment favorable to plaintiff welfare recipients as to the first and second claims. The district court amended this judgment on November 17, 1970. 1 Defendant took an interlocutory appeal to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b). We reversed in part and remanded the cause to the district court for further proceedings. Bryant v. Carleson, 444 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1971).

On April 29, 1971, defendant director promulgated EAS § 44-313 (a state welfare regulation), amending the state welfare plan by increasing dollar maximums to be paid AFDC recipients by 21.4%, effective June 1, 1971. This date is to be compared to the July 1, 1969 date such an adjustment should have been made, as provided in section 402(a) (23) of the Act. The 21.4% increase was premised on the view that the amounts used by the state to determine the needs of individuals had been last “established” as that term is used in section 402(a) (23), on January 1, 1962, pursuant to SB 568, Cal.Stats.1961; ch. 1396, now Welfare and Institutions Code, § 11450(a).

By letter dated June 21, 1971, the Administrator of the Social and Rehabilitation Service of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), advised all interested parties that the amendment of the state plan, accomplished by the promulgation of EAS § 44-313 “meets Federal requirements. . . .” In this letter the Administrator declined to condition approval of the state plan on its award of retroactive benefits to welfare recipients. The Administrator also expressly stated that the 21.4% increase provided in EAS § 44-313 is acceptable because:

On the basis of EAS § 44-313, and the Administrator’s letter of June 21, 1971, approving the California welfare plan as so amended, defendant, on June 29, 1971, moved in the district court to dismiss this action as moot. Plaintiffs countered with a motion to modify the amended partial summary judgment in two particulars.

One of the amendments sought by plaintiffs was the inclusion of a judicial declaration that the 21.4% increase in dollar máximums authorized by EAS § 44-313 is erroneous, and that for families with from two to nine children, the increase should be 46.7% because it should cover increases since October, 1951 (assertedly the last date such needs were “established”), an.d for families with one child, or more than nine, the increase should be 32.8% because it should cover the increases since October, 1957 (assertedly the last date such needs were “established”).

The second amendment of the November 17, 1970 judgment sought by plain *113 tiffs was inclusion of a decretal provision requiring the state to make payments to welfare recipients at the higher rate, retroactive to July 1, 1969, instead of October 1, 1970, as provided in the November 17, 1970 judgment, or any later date. On July 31, 1971, the United States Attorney filed an amicus curiae brief in the district court on behalf of HEW reiterating that agency’s position, as stated in its letter of June 21, 1971, referred to above, that the state was then in full compliance with federal requirements.

After a hearing, the district court entered an order on August 10, 1971, determining that the State of California is in full compliance with section 402(a) (23) of the Act, and that the prior partial summary judgment, as amended, “has been satisfied.” This order also denied plaintiffs’ request that defendant be required to make payments in accordance with section 402(a) (23) retroactive to July 1, 1969. This order was made final on January 7, 1972, when the district court granted plaintiffs’ request to dismiss, without prejudice, plaintiffs’ third, fourth and fifth claims, and entered a final judgment consistent with the August 10, 1971 order. Plaintiffs then took this appeal.

In this court, plaintiffs advance the same arguments they relied upon in the remanded district court proceedings, namely:

We reject these arguments for the reasons stated orally by the district court at the close of argument on July 29, 1971, as follows:

Affirmed.

. There were subsequent amendments of this judgment on December 18, 1970 and February 26, 1971, but these amendments are not here relevant.