MANGESH S. PATIL, NEERAJ P. DHOTE
Association of College and University Superannuated Teachers (Maharashtra) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through its Secretary Department of Education, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Additional GP and learned advocate for respondents no. 1 and 4 in both writ petitions waive service. At the joint request of the parties, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By way of these writ petitions, the teachers who are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (Pension Rules) are alleging about discrimination between them who all stood retired between 01-01-1996 and 31-12-2005 on the one hand and teachers who retired prior to 01-01-1996 and who would retire after 01-01-2006.
3. It is being the stand that in order to implement the sixth central pay commission recommendations, the State Government appointed a three member State Pay Revision Committee styled as ‘Hakim Committee’ which inter-alia recommended modification of the pension and the family pension. Pursuant to such report of the committee by issuing a government resolution dated 27-02-2009, the State decided to revise the pension and introduced the modification of Pension Rules as applicable to the state government employees and other employees governed by the Pension Rules. Accordingl
Anand Swarup Singh vs. State of Punjab
All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary vs. State of Manipur
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others
Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta and Others vs. Capt. Biplabendra Chand
D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India
Indian Ex-Services League and Others vs. Union of India
K.I. Rathee vs. Union of India
Kirshena Kuma vs. Union of India
State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Prem Raj
State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Pensioners Samaj
S.C. Chandra and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others
State of Punjab and Others vs. Amar Nath Goyal and Others
Suchet Singh Yadav and Others vs. Union of India and Others
State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Amrit Lal Gandhi and Others
State of W.B. and Another vs. W.B. Govt. Pensioners Associations and Others
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 classificat....
Pension entitlement is governed by existing rules, and any revisions depend on state policy, not individual claims based on service length.
The court established the validity of the State's decision to adopt a cut-off date for pension calculation, considering financial implications and policy decisions.
Classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
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.