Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, MITALI THAKURIA, JJ.
The Arunachal Pradesh State Government Pensioners Association and Anr – Appellants
Versus
The State Of AP and Anr. – Appellants
WA 22 of 2023
Decided on : 02-02-2024
Pensioners - Government Pensioners - 7th Central Pay Commission - 7th CPC - 7th CPC Recommendations - Central Government Civil Employees - Office Memorandum - Formulation II - Formulation I - Revision of Pension - Pre-2016 Pensioners - Arunachal Pradesh Gazette - Medical Allowance - Retrospective Effect - Policy Decision - Mandamus
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, representing Arunachal Pradesh State Government Pensioners Association, sought implementation of 7th CPC recommendations for pensioners who retired prior to 2016. The State Government had adopted certain recommendations but not others, leading to the filing of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the 7th CPC recommendations were not automatically binding on the State Government, and the court's interference with the policy decision of the government was limited unless the policy was illegal, unreasonable, or in violation of a statute. The court also noted that the State Government's adoption of the Central Government's Office Memorandum was limited to specific provisions and did not automatically extend to subsequent Office Memoranda.
Issues: 1. Whether the 7th CPC recommendations were binding on the State Government and created legally enforceable rights for the petitioners. 2. Whether the court could interfere with the government's policy decision on the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations.
Ratio Decidendi: The 7th CPC recommendations were not automatically applicable to the State Government, and the court's interference with the government's policy decision was limited unless the policy was illegal, unreasonable, or in violation of a statute. The State Government's adoption of the Central Government's Office Memorandum was limited to specific provisions and did not automatically extend to subsequent Office Memoranda.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the Single Bench, and the discretion was left to the State Government for adopting the later part of the recommendation if found feasible.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
The instant intra court appeal is preferred against a judgment dated 26.06.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)373/2021 by which, the writ petition filed by the appellants as writ petitioners was dismissed.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner no. 1 is the Arunachal Pradesh State Government Pensioners Association whereas the appellant/writ petitioner no. 2 is one of its office bearers. The cause of action espoused is for the pensioners of the State Government who have retired prior to the year 2016.
3. As per the case projected, in the year 2014, the Government of India had appointed 7th Central Pay Commission (7th CPC), with specified terms of reference. Accordingly, the 7th Pay Commission has submitted its report on 19.11.2015. Thereafter, the Govt. of India, after due consideration has accepted the report of the Commission, vide Resolution F.No.38/37/2016-P & PW (A) dated 04.08.2016. On the same day the Government of India has issued one Office Memorandum F.No.38/37/2016-P & PW (A) (ii) for implementation of the decision of the Government on revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners/family pensioners in terms of the Formulation II, as contained in Item 11 of the Govt. of India Resolution F.No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 04.08.2016. Thereafter, on 12.05.2017, the Govt. of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare, had issued another Office Memorandum, dated 12.05.2017, giving effect of re-fixation of pension of pre 01.01.2016 pensioners/family pensioners based on Formulation I of Item 11 as recommended by the 7th CPC. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, had issued another Office Memorandum on 14.07.2017, revising the fixed medical allowance from Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- payable w.e.f. 01.07.2017. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh also, instead of appointing a Pay Commission, used to implement the report of the Central Pay Commissions, so constituted by the Government of India. Thereafter, on 16.01.2017, the Stated Government also adopted the Office Memorandum F.No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A)(ii), dated 04.08.2016 and issued one Office Memorandum No.DAP/PEN/27/2016, dated 16.01.2017, and the same was published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, and extended the benefit of revision of pension of pre-01.01.2016 retirees in terms of the Formulation II as contained in Item 11 of the Government of India Resolution dated 04.08.2016. But, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has not extended the benefits of re-fixation of pension of pre 01.01.2016 pensioners/family pensioners based on Formulation I of Item 11 as recommended by the 7th CPC, in the similar line with the Notification, dated 12.05.2017, issued by the Govt. of India. It is contended that apart from this the State Government has also not paid the arrears of revised fixed medial allowances to the pre-01.01.2016 retirees for the period from 01.07.2017 to 01.04.2018, @ Rs.1000/, even though policy decision on the same was announced by the Finance Minister of the State in his budget speech on the floor of the House on 12.03.2018. However, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh by issuing one Office Memorandum, dated 05.10.2015, the pensioners/family pensioners of Arunachal Pradesh Government were paid fixed medical allowance @ Rs.500/- per month, retrospectively w.e.f. 01.12.2014. The petitioners had filed several representations to the State Government functionaries for implementation of but, they received no response from the Government. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had filed the concerned writ petition. The respondent had resisted the claim by filing affidavit-in-opposition which was also responded by the writ petitioners by filing rejoinder-affidavit.
4. The Hon’ble Single Judge after consideration of the respective pleadings had formulated 2 (two) issues which are as follows:
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.
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.
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....
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....
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 proh....
Pension is not a bounty but a recompense for long years of service, and the date from which the pensioner shall be entitled to the benefit of revision cannot be arbitrarily determined by the employer....
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
