IMPORTANT POINT
 Where an employee under the terms and conditions of service or under the relevant rules relating to pension is not eligible to earn pension on his or her retirement, any amendment to the rules covering a new class of pensioner would not confer pensionary benefits to the employee who has retired prior to coming into force of such amendment of Rules.

JUDGMENT

Khare, J.-The respondent herein, was appointed as a Lady Medical Officer in the Family Welfare Centre, Vishakhapatnam under the control of Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Vishakhapatnam on 22.9.1968. Subsequently, she was made quasi-permanent with effect from 31.3.1972 by an order dated 15.10.1974. On 13.11.1980, the respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. On retirement, the respondent was given the terminal and other benefits under Central Civil Services (Temporary) Services Rules, 1965. The respondent was also given insurance money along with other benefits, as admissible to her. At the time when the respondent retired she had not completed the requisite qualified service of twenty years for entitlement of pension. She was informed that as she had not put in required number of length of service, she is not entitled any pension. Subsequently, the Fourth Pay Commission made recommendation that for entitlement of pro rata pension, the length of service be reduced from twenty years to ten years. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government of India and came into force with effect from 1.1.1986. The respondent, after the Pay Commission Report came into force, made a representation that since the length of service for entitlement to pension has been reduced from twenty years to ten years as per recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission and as she had put in only twelve years, two months and nine days length of service, she is entitled to pro rata pension with effect from 1.1.1986. The representation of the respondent was considered and it was found that when the respondent retired, the requirement for entitlement for pension was that the retiree must have put in twenty years of service and since she retired prior to 1.1.1986, she was not entitled to pension. Under such circumstances, the respondent in the year 1996 filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") for direction to the appellants herein, to grant pro rata pension in view of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1986.

2. The Tribunal relying a decision of this Court in M.C. Dhingra v. Union of India1 held that even though the respondent retired much prior to 1.1.1986, the payment of pro rata pension cannot be denied to her with effect from 1.1.1986. According to the Tribunal, such a denial would be arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Tribunal further relying upon another decision in T.S. Thiruverngadam v. Secretary to Government of India & Ors.2, held that any benefit conferred by the Government is not prospective, but will have a retrospective effect and such benefit will be available to even those who have retired prior to 1.1.1986 and in that view of the matter the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent with a direction to the appellants herein to grant pro rata pension with effect from one year prior to filing of the O.A. It is against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal the appellants are in appeal before us.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that in the year 1980 when the respondent retired from service she was not eligible for grant of liberalized pension in view of the fact that she had not put in 20 years of service. The grant of pro rata pension on completing ten years of qualified service for pension was introduced for the first time by the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1986 and, therefore, the said recommendation cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. Learned counsel pointed out that the present case stands covered by the decision of this Court in the case of V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr.3. Learned counsel also pointed out that decisions relied upon by the Tribunal in allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent were distinguished in V. Kasturi s case (supra).