Financial constraint can justify fixing a cut-off date for payment of revised pension, and the court should consider the State's justification for policy decisions based on financial constraints.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agartala in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012, by which, the High Court has struck down Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules, 2009) and consequently has directed to pay the original writ petitioner the arrears of pension for the period from 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2008, the State of Tripura has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:-

2.1 That the State of Tripura has enacted/framed the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009, issued by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009 which was under challenge before the High Court, which has been struck down by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order, is as under :-

“3(3) The revised rate of pension within the above limits of minimum and maximum pension shall be computed notionally from 1st January 2006 or, as the case may be, from the date of superannuation/retirement whichever is later. But financial benefit according to this computation will be admissible from 1st January 2009 or from the date of superannuation/retirement whichever is later”

2.2 On the request made by the Government of India to consider adoption and implementation of Revised Pay Structure in UGC System for Teachers in Colleges w.e.f. 01.01.2006 following revision of pay scales of Central Government employees as per 6th Central Pay Commission’s recommendations, the State of Tripura issued a notification dated 02.02.2010 and introduced revised pay structure with 2 Band Pay Rs.15600-39100 and 37400-67000 respectively with appropriate academic Grade Pay and it was specified that arrears would be payable subject to receipt of financial assistance of 80% from Central Government and that all other allowances to be admissible from 01.01.2009. The State’s notification also provided that the pension would be admissible as per Pension Rules for State as amended from time-to-time and the upper ceiling of pension was raised from Rs.25200 to 38500. The State amended Rule 3(2) of the Pension Rules, 2009 in the year 2010 and the maximum limit of pension was fixed at Rs.38500.

2.3 That vide letter/communication dated 23.12.2010, the Finance Department clarified that as per Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009, pension will be computed notionally and will take effect from date of retirement of a college teacher who retired after 01.01.2006 but financial benefit to be admissible only from 01.01.2009 or date of retirement, whichever is later.

2.4 That respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner retired as Reader-cum-Vice Principal on 28.02.2007 upon attaining age of superannuation. Her pension was computed at Rs.9,150/- based on her last basic pay of Rs.18,300/-. That thereafter on revision of pay, her pension came to be revised to Rs.26,850/- on the basis of revised basic pay of Rs.53,700/-. However, the revised pay/pension was made admissible and actually paid from 01.01.2009 and from the date of her retirement till 01.01.2009 it was computed notionally. Therefore, the original writ petitioner preferred a writ petition before the High Court initially praying for (i) arrears of salary for the period from 01.01.2006 to 28.02.2007; (ii) arrears of pension for the period from 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2008 on the basis of revised pay scale. At this stage, it is required to be noted that initially there was no challenge made to the validity of Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009. However, subsequently, the writ petition came to be amended and prayer for arrears of salary was deleted and the prayer for quashing of Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009 was made.

2.5 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioner that there is no reasonable excuse to deny the