The judgment emphasizes that the classification of pensioners for revised pension must be based on a rational principle with a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, and any arbitrary classification violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

V.G.BISHT, J. - Rule. The learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of parties, petitioner is heard finally.

2. The petitioner by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns Government Resolution No.HCT-2015/PRA/KRA 77/KA.TEEN dated 10th May 2016 being discriminatory to the effect that it does not include those pensioners who retired pre-1996 and thus is in violation to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further seeks direction to respondent no.1 State to pay increased / revised pension as per the Government Resolution No.HCT-2015/PRA/KRA 77/KA.TEEN dated 10th May 2016 uniformly to the petitioner irrespective of any cut-off date.

3. The facts of the present petition in nutshell are as under :

(a) The petitioner retired as a District and Sessions Judge, Selection Grade, Satara on 30th September 1991 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner is governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

(b) The petitioner contends that the State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution dated 5th January 2011 (as amended on 30th March 2011) by which recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee were accepted. The said Government Resolution gives effect to the recommendations of Padmanabhan Committee regarding the pension payable to the Judicial Officers in the State. By further Government Resolution dated 25th July 2011 the benefits of the Government Resolution dated 5th January 2011 were also extended to the Judicial Officers who retired prior to 1st January 2006.

(c) It is the case of the petitioner that the Andhra Pradesh Retired Judges Association being aggrieved by certain recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee Report filed I.A. (No.5 of 2009) in Writ Petition No.1022 of 1989 in the Hon 'ble Supreme Court which was disposed off by an order dated 8th October 2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the said I.A. (No.5 of 2009) preferred by said Judicial Officers who retired after 1st January 1996 but prior to 1st January 2006.

(d) It is then contended that based on the aforesaid order dated 8 th October 2012 the present respondent no.1 State of Maharashtra by its Government Resolution No. HCT-2015/PRA/KRA 77/KA.TEEN dated 10th May 2016 (Exh. C) has raised the pension by 3.07 times. However, this increase / revision of the pension is given to only those pensioners who retired after 1st January 1996. The relevant portion of the said Government Resolution reads as under :

"2(i) The existing pensions of all past pensioners who retired after 01.01.1996 and the pensioners whose pensions were consolidated as per Karnataka model shall be raised by 3.07 times on par with the other pensioners subject to minimum of 50% of the revised pay scale of pay of their respective post. "

(e) According to the petitioner, as he retired prior to 1st January 1996, he is aggrieved by the said cut-off date specified in the Government Resolution since it has now created two classes of pensioners i.e. pre-1996 and post-1996 for the purpose of revision of pension. This is absolutely arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Despite making representations, no action has been taken by the respondents. Therefore, the present petition.

4. Respondent no.1 State of Maharashtra has resisted the present petition by filing affidavit in reply through the Joint Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. According to the respondent no.1 State, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order in I.A. (No.5 of 2009) preferred by Retired Judicial Officers. The order reads thus :

"(i) The existing pension of all past pensioners who retired after 01.01.1996 and the pensioners whose pensions were consolidated as per Karnataka model shall be raised by 3.07 times on par with the other pensioners subject to minimum of 50% of the revised pay of their respective post. "

This IA No.5 of 2009 has been decided on 08.10.2012, wher