SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Satish Chander Sharma & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 179 of 2018
Decided On : 16-04-2025
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. Nanda Vs. State of H.P., 2013 SCC Online HP 5151, CWP No. 4425 of 2009. The High Court had allowed the writ petitions vide the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 by directing the State to provide pension to the retired employees of the Corporation in terms of the aforesaid scheme. This decision was reversed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Rajesh Chander Sood, (2016) 10 SCC 77.
4. Thereafter, the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court seeking the same relief. Various contentions have been raised including the one that the decision in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) has ignored several binding precedents of this Court and is, therefore, a decision rendered per incuriam.
5. This Court issued notice vide the order dated 20.03.2018. In the said order, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, after observing that since correctness of this Court’s judgment in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) has been questioned, requested the learned Chief Justice to place the matter before a three-Judge Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before the present Bench and heard accordingly.
6. Though learned senior counsel for the respondent- State has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the present writ petition, we are of the view that such an objection may be considered while considering the stand of the respondents.
7. At the outset, it would be apposite to advert to the relevant facts.
8. The Corporation was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 pursuant to a notification dated 26.03.1974 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is completely owned and controlled by the State Government inasmuch as 100% of the share capital of the Corporation is owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh.
9. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Clerk in the Corporation on 29.10.1975. On 27.03.1981, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Assistant(Senior Accountant) on 07.11.1984. He was promoted to the post of Office Manager(Junior) on 03.04.1989 and, thereafter, to the post of Office Manager (Senior) on 17.11.2011. Petitioner No. 1 superannuated from service on 31.01.2013.
9.1. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Clerk in the Corporation on 15.02.1988. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 15.02.1993 and, thereafter, to the post of Junior Assistant on 01.01.1996. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 07.09.2009 whereafter he was promoted to the post of Office Manager (Junior) from which post he superannuated on 30.09.2016.
9.2. Petitioner No. 3 was appointed to the post of Clerk in the Corporation on 05.12.1981. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 24.05.1985 and, thereafter, to the post of Junior Assistant on 25.04.1992. He was further
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
AI
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.
Abrupt stoppage of dearness relief on pension for pre-repeal corporate scheme retirees invalid; constitutes arbitrary action dehors scheme and CCS Rules 55-A, violative of natural justice and vested ....
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.