The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between pre and post-1986 retirees in the calculation of pension and the impact of the revised pay scales on pensionary benefits.

Judgment

RUMA PAL, J.

( 1 ) THE issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the decision of this Court in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India1, obliges the appellant to pay pension calculated on the revised scales of pay under the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1990, to all the erstwhile employees of the State Government irrespective of their date of retirement. 1 1983 (1) SCC 305.

( 2 ) THE West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1990 (referred to hereafter as the 1990 ropa Rules), inter alia, revised the pay scales of State Government employees w. e. f. 1/01/1986. It covered those employees who were in service on 1-1-1986 even though such employees may have retired before the 1990 ROPA Rules were in fact published. As far as these retired employees were concerned, their pay could only be revised notionally and a memorandum was issued on 25/04/1990 giving them pensionary benefits calculated on the basis of such notionally revised scales of pay.

( 3 ) THE notification was challenged by the respondent-association, the members of which are all pre 1986 retirees. They filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court claiming that they too were entitled to the same benefits as the post 1986 retirees. The petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge by directing the Secretary of the Finance Department to consider the claim of the association in the light of the judgment in D. S. Nakara, after giving the association a chance of being heard and by passing a speaking order.

( 4 ) IN compliance with the directive of the High Court, the Secretary, Finance Department heard the members of the association. By an order dated 26/04/1993, the Finance Secretary held that D. S. Nakaras decision only directed parity in the principle of calculation of pension and not parity in the actual quantum of pension payable. It was held that the State Government had adopted the same formula for computation of pension of all the pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement, namely, 50% of last pay drawn by the incumbent before the retirement. Since those who had retired prior to the date of revision of the pay scales could not avail themselves of the revised pay scales, the Fourth Central Pay Commission evolved a formula to give the pre-1986 retirees dearness allowance on the basis of the 608 point Consumer Price Index (CPI ). The order noted that the revised pay scales were also on the basis of 608 point CPI being merged with unrevised pay. According to the Finance Secretary, the State Government had issued a notification 7532-F dated 6/04/1988 by which the State Government, had suitably removed the disparity and discrimination among all classes of pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement. The claim of the association for calculation of pension payable to pre-1-1-1986 retirees on the basis of the revised pay scales was accordingly rejected.

( 5 ) IMPUGNING the decision of the Finance Secretary the respondent-association filed a second writ application before the High Court in which it was, inter alia, claimed that the Finance Secretarys order should be quashed and the State-respondents should be directed to give equal pension and pensionary benefits to all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement.

( 6 ) BY reason of promulgation of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the second writ petition was transferred to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the application of the association. The Tribunals order was challenged by the respondent-association before the Division Bench of the High Court by a third application under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This writ application was decided in favour of the association by an order dated 13/05/1998. It was held by the High Court that in keeping with the decision in D. S. Nakaras case, the members of the association were entitled to the pensionary benefits as were paid to post-1986 retirees. The decision of