SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Satish Chander Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is a petition filed by three petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners are retired officers of Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Limited (briefly ‘the Corporation’ hereinafter). They are aggrieved by denial of pensionary benefits to them in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 discontinued vide the notification dated 02.12.2004, which though carved out an exception for those who had opted for the scheme and had superannuated prior to 02.12.2004. Hence, they seek a direction to the respondents for payment of pension to them upon their superannuation in terms of the said scheme at par with similarly situated employees who had retired prior to 02.12.2004, by counting their pensionable service from the date of joining till the date of their superannuation.
3. This issue was earlier raised by a group of petitioners before the Himachal Pradesh High Court (‘High Court’ hereinafter) by filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the lead case being P.D
BALCO Employees’ Union Vs. Union of India
State of H.P. Vs. Rajesh Chander Sood
D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sub-Inspector Sadhan Kumar Goswami Vs. Union of India
Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra
Omprakash Verma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court upheld the repeal of the pension scheme, affirming the State's authority to set a cut-off date for pension eligibility and the binding nature of prior judgments.
Fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.
An amendment with retrospective operation that takes away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule violates the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constituti....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.