Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., SHUBHA MEHTA, J.
Retired Chief Engineer Welfare Society of Rajasthan & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2646 of 2017
Decided On : 27-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahendra Singh with Ms. Nandni Bhown.
For the Respondent:Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Srijna Shresth.

Pension entitlement is governed by existing rules, and any revisions depend on state policy, not individual claims based on service length.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 - Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 - Petition challenging differential treatment in pension for retired Chief Engineers, claiming entitlement to parity in pension benefits based on revised pay scales and seeking revision of gratuity - The court held that pension is governed by existing rules and cannot be retrospectively applied unless explicitly stated. The petitioners could not claim equal pension based solely on the duration of service as existing laws do not provide for such revision and the state is not mandated to adjust pensions with every pay revision. Hence, the differentiation based on the date of retirement was deemed lawful. (Paras 1-53)

(B) Pension - Entitlement and Basis - Court emphasized that pension amounts are determined based on the salary at retirement, and any revisions can only be made following legislative policy, not as a matter of right. The distinction made by the state was legitimate and aligned with its financial obligations.

(C) Welfare State Obligations - While the state performs a welfare function, any adjustments to pension must adhere to established policies and existing laws surrounding pension rights.

(D)

Result: Petition dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's requests for pension equality. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background on pension rules and notifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. differential treatment of pension scales. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. procedures for pension calculation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. arguments against arbitrary cutoff dates. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. legal requirements for pension adjustments. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. statutory basis for pension calculation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. policy vs. statutory obligations in pension. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
9. court's ruling on equal treatment in pension. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
10. amendment effects on pension rules. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
11. court's stance on historical pension adjustments. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
12. clarification on petitioner's grievances. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
13. conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 52 , 53)

ORDER :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, which is a society of retired Chief Engineers, constituted for their welfare and is registered under the provisions of Societies Act, 1958. The petitioner No. 1-Society has prayed for following reliefs:-

(a) It may kindly be declared and directed that persons who retire from the same or equivalent post after rendering the same length of service are entitled to parity and equality in the matter of retirement benefits including pension/family pension,

(b) it may kindly be declared and directed that as and when the pay scale, pay band and/or grade pay of a particular post is revised all persons who have previously retired from the said post are entitled to corresponding and consequential revision of their monthly pension so that all persons who have retired from such a post after rendering the same length of service are given same monthly pension irrespective of their dates of retirement, and the monthly pension/family pension is to be revised accordingly,

(c) It may kindly be declared and directed that the respondents having revised and enhanced the gratuity payable to retired employees from Rs.3.5 lacs to Rs.10 lacs and that too with retrospective effect the said benefit ought to have been given to all persons who have retired from the same post after rendering same length of service,

(d) The impugned notification dated 12.09.2008 and memorandum dated 22.05.2008 to the extent they provide differential treatment in the matter of monthly pension, family pension and gratuity to persons who have retired from the post of Chief Engineer after rendering the same length of service may kindly be declared unconstitutional and set aside.

(e) The respondents may kingly be directed to suitably enhance the monthly pension, family pension as well as gratuity of the members of the petitioner society with effect from the date when such benefits were given to other similarly situated persons who have retired from the same post after rendering the same length of service in terms of aforementioned notification and memoranda,

(f) It may kindly be declared and directed that the fixation of cutoff date as a result of which equals were treated as unequals in the matter of payment of pension, family pension and gratuity is arbitrary and that a single class of pensioners cannot be discriminated on basis of date of retirement,

(g) It may kindly be declared and directed that since Grade Pay 23 ceased to exist from 20.7.2011, members of the petitioner society are automatically entitled to have their monthly pension/family pension enhanced and computed as per Grade Pay 24,

(h) Without prejudice to aforesaid it may kindly be declared and directed that members of the petitioner society are entitled to the payment of enhanced minimum pension as Rs.24295 from 1.1.2006 to July 2011 and Rs.27350 from July 2011 onward