IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Shri Shairei Raleng Retired Registrar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Nagaland – Respondents
WP(C) No. 281 of 2022
Decided on : 10-06-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for revised pension. (Para 1 , 4 , 11) |
| 2. legal background establishing pension entitlement. (Para 2) |
| 3. facts regarding pension revisions and representations. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 4. details of communication surrounding pension adjustments. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's review of respondent's arguments. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 6. comparison of applicable pension rules. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. classification of pensioners and implications of financial burden. (Para 20 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. identifying constitutional rights related to pensions. (Para 30) |
| 9. court's affirmation of pension as a right. (Para 39 , 40 , 45) |
| 10. directives for respondents on pension fixation. (Para 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the state respondents No. 1 and 2, and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned Standing Counsel for the Accountant General, Nagaland and the Senior Accounts Officer (ROP cell), respondents No.3 and 4.
2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by Shri Shairei Raleng, retired Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench seeking following relief(s) :-
(ii) To direct the respondent authority/authorities to review and re-fix the pension entitlement of the petitioner to 50% of the revised basic scale of pay of Rs. 54600/- w.e.f. 01/04/2010 to 31/12/2017.
(iii) To direct the respondent authority/ authorities to remit the arrears of pension to the petitioner with admissible interest as applicable to outstanding pension amounts w.e.f. 21/12/2017, till payment is made.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are adumbrated herein below:-
The petitioner, while retiring as the Registrar, Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, on 28/02/2005, was drawing salary at the pre-revised Basic Pay of Rs. 20900/- in the Scale of Pay of Rs. 16400-500-20900/- in the Fitment Table-20 of Annexure-III of the ROP Rules, 2010 and the O.M. dated 05/05/2017. As per the Fitment Table-20 of Annexure- III, the Basic Pay of Rs. 20900/- is revised to Rs.54600/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to 50% of the revised pension of Rs. 54600/-, that is to say, Rs. 27300/- per month w.e.f. 01/04/2010 to 31/12/2017 and not 50% of the minimum Basic Pay of Rs. 16400/- revised to Rs. 49590/-. Thereafter, the Government of Nagaland, Finance Department, Establishment Branch (ROP Cell), vide Office Memorandum No. FIN/ESTT-2/9/ROP/PEN/2016, Dated 20th December, 2017 modified the O.M. dated 05/05/2017, in view of which the revision of the pension/family pension was given effect from 01/04/2010, i.e. the date of implementation of the ROP Rules, 2010.
Thereafter, the petitioner, having not been paid, the revised monthly pension entitled by him, by the respondent authorities, since 01/04/2010 till 31/12/2017, had submitted several representations on 18/01/2021, 08/03/21, 27/03/21, 13/06/2021, 15/07/21 and 23/08/21 to the Principal Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima for implementation of O.M. dated 05/05/2017,
Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330
D.S. Nakara and Others vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305
Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India
Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119
State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh. (1976) 2 SCC 1
State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma reported in (2015) 9 SCC 540
Sukumaran vs. State of Kerela and Another reported in (2020) 8 SCC 106
Pension is a legal entitlement governed by rules, not at the discretion of the authorities, ensuring that pre-2008 retirees are also entitled to revised pension benefits.
The court established that pension rights for public servants are constitutional and must adhere to applicable rules, fixed properly without arbitrary reductions by state authorities.
Pension entitlement is governed by existing rules, and any revisions depend on state policy, not individual claims based on service length.
The reasonableness of the cut-off date for pension revision and the absence of unreasonableness in the respondent corporation's actions in fixing the cut-off date were the central legal points establ....
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....
Pre-2006 pensioners entitled to revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at 50% of minimum pay in pay band plus grade pay corresponding to pre-revised scale per VI CPC Resolution; clarificatory OMs illegall....
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.