IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of rational classification and the nexus to the objective sought to be achieved in the grant of revised pension, as well as the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the context of pension calculation.

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. Accordingly, rule 110(1) was modified and it provides that it is only applicable to the retirees after 01-01-2006 and holding them to be entitled to 50% of the basic pay or average basic pay received during the last 10 months, whichever is more, as the minimum pension payable.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Adwant would submit that conspicuously this amendment in the Pension Rules though effected in the year 2016 was brought into effect with effect from 01-01-2016. However, by issuing government resolution dated 05-05-2009, the government pegged down pension receivable by the persons like the petitioners who retired between 01-01-1996 and 01-01-2006, to 40% increase on basic pay. He would submit that in respect of the employees who retired prior to 01-01-1996 even their pension was fixed at 50% of the revised pay scale introduced by fourth pay commission. He would thus submit that the pension that was made payable to the employees who retired prior to 01-01-1996 according to the revised pay scale under the fourth pay commission and the employees who stood retired after 01-01-2006 during sixth pay commission revision, their pension has been fixed @ 50% of the revised pay scale under the respective pay commission. As against it, it is only the petitioners who retired during the fifth pay commission between 01-01-1996 and 01-01-2006 have been discriminated and their pension has been fixed @ 40% increase on the basic pay.

5. Mr. Adwant would submit that the government resolution dated 05-05-2009, is, therefore, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He seek reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary vs. State of Manipur, (2020) 14 SCC 625 and D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305.

6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Yawalkar would submit that there is no discrimination. The employees retiring during different time span would form distinct classes. Merely because all of them are government servants, no such parity can be claimed. If some benefits have been extended pursuant to the Hakim committee recommendations to the employees retiring after 01-01-2006, it would be a matter of setting a cut off date for accepting the recommendations. The petitioners who retired prior thereto would form a different class and cannot seek to derive the benefit similar to the one conferred upon the employees retiring after 01-01-2006. He would place reliance on the following judgments:

(1) Kirshena Kuma vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1782

(2) Indian Ex-Services League and Others vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1182

(3) Union of India vs. P.N. Menon and Others, AIR 1994 SC 2221

(4) State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Prem Raj, AIR 1997 SC 1081

(5) Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta and Others vs. Capt.