IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
Ramdev Prasad Yadav @ Ramdev Yadav, Son of Late Ramotar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 699 of 2021, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1525 of 2021, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1671 of 2021, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1823 of 2021, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3017 of 2021
Decided on : 23-12-2022
Pensionery Benefits - Retired Teachers - Memo No. 630 dated 21.01.2010, Memo No. 755 dated 20.10.2017, Memo No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 12.05.2017 - The court discussed the resolution issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, and the pension revision order issued by the Government of India. It emphasized the applicability of notional pay fixation and the distinction between retired employees and employees in service. The court also highlighted the relevance of the judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130, in the context of discrimination and cut-off dates for pensioners.
Fact of the Case:
Retired teachers approached the court seeking quashing of an order rejecting their claim for enhanced retiral and pensionery benefits after the 7th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2016. The petitioners argued that they suffered loss of seniority and pension amount due to the notional pay fixation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the retired employees and the employees in service cannot be kept in one category and allowed similar benefits. It noted that the notional pay fixation with effect from 01.01.2016 should only be applicable to those in service, and pensioners' notional pay fixation should be based on the last pay drawn.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of notional pay fixation, the distinction between retired employees and employees in service, and the relevance of the judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India and others.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the benefit of notional pay fixation by taking into account the increment of pay is confined to the employees in service, and the pensioners' notional pay fixation has been made on the basis of last pay drawn. It also emphasized the need for challenging the resolution issued by the Finance Department if there were grievances.
Final Decision: All the writ applications were found devoid of merit and dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Madhav Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the cases and respective counsels for the State respondents.
2. The issue involved in all the writ applications are identical, based on similar facts and circumstances, hence all the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order/judgment with the consent of the respective counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
3. The petitioners are retired teachers, who superannuated from different Primary Schools prior to 01.01.2016 approached before this Court by filing writ applications seeking quashing of the order dated 02.06.2020 passed by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department whereby the representation filed by the petitioners pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3116 of 2020, C.W.J.C. No. 1858 of 2020, C.W.J.C. No. 1854 of 2020, C.W.J.C. No. 1977 of 2020 and C.W.J.C. No. 3027 of 2020 whereby the claim of the petitioners for enhanced retiral and pensionery benefits have been rejected illegally and without assigning any reason.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in the aforesaid writ applications were initially appointed to the post of Assistant Teachers in different Primary Schools/Middle Schools in different Districts of the State of Bihar and after rendering unblemished services, they superannuated prior to 01.01.2016. It is the case of the petitioners that prior to 2016, the pay scale and grade pay of the petitioners was 6500-10500 + 4800/-.
5. On being superannuated, the petitioners have been allowed the admissible post retiral benefits. However, despite 7th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2016 when the petitioners have not been allowed the benefit and they have been put to huge loss in pension, as also they suffered loss of seniority on account of procedure followed for notional pay fixation in respect of pension revision benefits, they approached before this Court by filing separate writ applications with regard to their grievances for payment of pensionery benefits on account of 7th Pay revision. All the aforesaid writ applications were heard and disposed of by order dated 13.02.2020 directing the petitioners to file a detailed representation before the respondent nos. 2 and 3 with regard to their grievances and the respondents were directed to look into the matter and disposed of the same by passing reasoned order.
6. In compliance of the aforesaid order of learned coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioners filed detailed representation before the concerned respondent nos. 2 and 3, which was duly considered by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, who turned down the claim of the petitioners and rejected the representations by the impugned order dated 02.06.2020, which are impugned in all the respective writ applications.
7. While assailing the impugned order dated 02.06.2020, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that while passing the impugned order, the respondent Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, did not take into account the resolution issued by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, as contained in Memo No. 630 dated 21.01.2010 to revise the pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996, in which the pensioners belonging to up till 31.12.2005 were put in the frame of pay band and grade pay, but at the time of consideration their pre-revised scale to revised pay band and grade pay, no attention was paid to the seniority in the pay band and the grade pay. He further submits that in the same pay band, the senior employees ought to have been given higher pay than that of their junior employees, but such aspect has not been taken into consideration causing anomaly and disparity amongst the pensioners. He also submits that the recommendation made by the 7th Pay Commission for the benefit to regular employee entitled increment during notional period, but neither the Central Government nor the Government
The distinction between retired employees and employees in service in the context of notional pay fixation and pension revision.
The court upheld the government's policy decision to set a cut-off date for extending monetary benefits to retirees, affirming that such classifications are permissible under constitutional provision....
The Tribunal affirms the principle of notional pay fixation to ensure fairness in pensionary benefits for similarly situated retired employees.
Employees retiring on 30th June are entitled to annual increments earned prior to retirement, with denial based on retirement date deemed arbitrary and contrary to fair labor principles.
It is a well settled principle of law that statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The rules made under....
Pre-cut-off voluntary retirees ineligible for notional promotional pay fixation for pension; Article 14 not violated by reasonable classification.
The statutory force of rules, impermissibility of creating two classes of pensioners, and the discriminatory nature of the classification were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Employees who retire before the implementation of revised pay rules cannot claim benefits under those rules; their entitlements must be determined according to the provisions applicable at the time o....
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.