Important Points
1. Grant of pensionary benefits vide Notification dated 9.6.1981 to those who retired after 9.6.1981 and deprivation of same to those who retired prior to said date without any justifiable differentia is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. While considering the question of grant of pensionary benefits, the State has to act to reach the constitutional goal of setting up a socialist State as stated and the assurance as given in the Directive Principles of State Policy. A pension is a part and parcel of that goal which secures to a person serving with the State after retirement of his livelihood. To deny such a right to such a person, without any sound reasoning or any justifiable differentia would be against the spirit of the Constitution.

Headnote:Service Law-Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 309-Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir-Section 124-Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulation-Article 177, 3rd proviso (inserted by Notification dated 9.6.1981)-Pensionary benefits-Grant of-Notification dated 9.6.1981 whereby pensionary benefits were granted to those Government employees who had put in 20 years of service-Subsequently, Government Order dated 3.10.1986 granting benefit of pension to all retired Government employees-Denial of pension benefits to appellants viz., drivers and conductors with Jammu and Kashmir SRT Corporation, who had put in 30 to 40 years as temporary Government servants on ground that they had retired prior to 9.6.1981 which is the date of issue of Notification-Grant of pension benefit to Govt. employees who retired after 9.6.1981 and depriving same to those who retired prior to 9.6.1981 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - Government Order dated 3.10.1986 not ultra vires Article 177 of Regulation-Appellants entitled to pensionary benefits.
       Held : We do not find any substance in the contention of the respondents that this order when read with the earlier notification dated 9th June, 1981 the benefit is only to be given to those who retired after the said date. If that be so, there was no need to issue this order on 3rd October, 1986. Government was aware of the amendment already made through the aforesaid notification to Article 177 of the said Regulation. If the stand of the respondent-State is to be accepted then the representations of the appellants should have been rejected but that was not so. (Para 8)
       We find that the amendment to Article 177 has given benefit to all the retiring employees, i.e., it would accrue to all retiring after 9th June, 1981 viz. the date of amendment. But it has not, by any positive words, excluded expressly to those who retired prior to the said date. If later the Government itself reconsidering the matter confers the same benefits even to those who retired prior to 9th June, 1986, it cannot be said to be either violating Article 177 or in conflict with that. It is a case, what is not contained in Article 177 is given later. If Government desired otherwise, it could have, even after issuing order dated 3rd October, 1986, withdrawn the same. On the contrary, it permitted to continue. Hence, even this submission of the said order being violative of Article 177, has no force. Even otherwise, we do not find any justifiable criteria for the State Government to draw the line between those who retired earlier and those retired after 9th June, 1981. Both such set of employees were equally placed in the same Undertaking/Corporation temporary in character and all having served in the organisations for more than 20 years. In fact, appellants have served with the Government for more than 30 to 40 years. The person serving for such a long period earns his legitimate expectation. It is not something which he seeks as a begging bowl. It is inappropriate for a State Government to take up a stand to get its own order to be held illegal, by giving restrictive interpretation to deny benefit to its own employees who had worked for such a long period. In fact, in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India, 1983(1) SCC 305, this Court held that criterion of date of enforcement of the revised scheme entitling benefits of the revision to those retiring after specified date while depriving the benefits to those retiring prior to that date was violative of Article 14. Even otherwise, while considering the question of grant of pensionary benefits the State has to act to reach the constitutional goal of setting up a socialist State as stated and the assurance as given in the Directive Principles of State Policy. A pension is a part and parcel of that goal, which secures to a person serving with the State after retirement of his livelihood. To deny such a right to such a person, without any sound reasoning or any justifiable differentia would be against the spirit of the Constitution. We find in the present case the stand taken by the State Government to be contrary to the said spirit. (Paras 11 and 12)
       Consequently held : The appellants would be entitled for the pensionary benefits in terms of and as held by learned Single Judge in its order dated 29th June, 1993. (Para 13)

Judgment

Misra, J.-The short question for consideration is, whether the appellants, who were all drivers and conductors in the Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation, are entitled to the pensionary benefits in terms of Government order dated 3rd October, 1986 when they retired from service of the Corporation prior to 9th June, 1981.

2. In the year 1947, the Government Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as ‘Undertaking’) was formed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to render transport services to its people. The appellants were employed as drivers and conductors from the year 1950 onwards. Initially, they were in service with the aforesaid Undertaking and later with the Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’). This Corporation was formed in the year 1976. All the appellants served in the State organisations for various terms ranging from 30 to 40 years. On 9th April, 1969 the State Undertaking was made a permanent department of the State Government. On 1st September, 1976, the aforesaid Corporation was formed in terms of State Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, which was made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of Act No. 25 of 1968. As a consequence, the Government employees serving with the State Undertaking were treated on deputation with the State Corporation. The Government oscillated with its decision the terms on which to confer pensionary benefits. Hence, it issued various orders in the years 1972 to 1974, all being made applicable from 9th April, 1969 vide Government’s order dated 27th March, 1979. By this, the option for drawing pension and other benefits was given to the appellants and others retired or seek to retire from the Corporation. The appellants, however, continued to be the State Government employees. Thereafter, on 9th June, 1981 through Regulation No. 177 the States Civil Services Regulation was amended by adding 3rd proviso to it. By that, a temporary Government servant with 20 years’ service on the date of superannuation was also entitled to draw pension. Then came the aforesaid Government order dated 3rd October, 1986 for exercising option even to those already retired for drawing pension as admissible under the normal rule applicable to a perma-nent government employee which was also given to the appellants and others to which the appellants opted. Admittedly, with reference to this Government order dated 3rd October, 1986 vide a Notification dated 20.4.1987, the appellants and others belonging to the erstwhile Undertaking were declared permanent in the aforesaid Corporation retrospectively to all those who were temporary upto 31st August, 1976. The case of the appellants is that some of the drivers similarly placed were granted pension under it but the same is refused to the appellants.

3. The appellants forcefully on the aforesaid Government order dated 3rd October, 1986, urged that the order, clearly, unequivocally without any reservation grants the pensionary benefits to all the retired personnel who retired from the Corporation including the appellants. For the respondents, the stand is, yes it is applicable but not to those who retired prior to 9th June, 1981. Admittedly, all the appellants retired prior to this date. Aggrieved by the said stand, the appellants filed a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who directed the respondents to give them pensionary benefits under the order dated 3.10.1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The said appeal was allowed in which it was held that the aforesaid Government order dated 3rd October, 1986 was contrary to the service conditions and the law governing the Writ petitioners. The Writ Petition stood dismissed. As against this order, the present appeal arises.

4. It is clear that the question of absorption and giving pensionary benefits to the employees in the afo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 375

Cases Referred (1)