Back
1984 Supreme(J&K) 48
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
M.L. Bhat, J.
Avtar Krishen Mengi - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 934/1983
Decided On : 13 September, 1984
Advocate For Appellant: A.V. Gupta
Advocate For Respondent: S.A. Salaria
Classification of pensioners based on their date of retirement for the purpose of granting pension benefits is unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Pension - Classification of Pensioners - Art. 14', 'SUBJECT': 'Pension', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Art. 14', 'Art. 240-AAA', 'Art. 240-A', 'Art. 240-AA', 'SRO 586'], 'SUMMARY': 'The court held that the classification of pensioners based on their date of retirement for the purpose of granting pension benefits is unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The court struck down the words "who retired on or after 31.3.1979" from Art. 240-AAA, which fixed the slab on the calculation of pension payable to pensioners based on their retirement prior or on or after 31.3.1979.'}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were pensioners of the State Government, challenged the validity of Art. 240-AAA of the J&K. Civil Service Regulations, which classified pensioners on the basis of their date of retirement. The petitioners contended that the classification was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the classification of pensioners based on their date of retirement for the purpose of granting pension benefits is unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The court struck down the words "who retired on or after 31.3.1979" from Art. 240-AAA, which fixed the slab on the calculation of pension payable to pensioners based on their retirement prior or on or after 31.3.1979.
Issues: Whether the classification of pensioners based on their date of retirement for the purpose of granting pension benefits is reasonable and constitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 S. C. 130, which held that the classification of pensioners on the basis of date of retirement for the purpose of granting pension benefits is arbitrary and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned words appearing in the Article 240-AAA to the effect that "who retired on or after 31.3.1979". The court also made the liberalised pension scheme applicable to all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement.
"240-AAA- Notwithstanding any thing contained in Article 240 A and 240-AA with regard to fixation of pension and the maximum limits thereof the amount of superannuation special retiring compensation and invalid pension in respect of Government servants who retire on or after 31st March 1979 shall be appropriate to the amount given hereunder:-
2. The benefit of this article is given to those only who have retired on or after 31ist March 1979. A table showing the benefit is illustrated at the foot of this Article. The petitioner contends that the pensioners constitute a single class have been divided in two classes i.e. those who have retired before 31.3.1979 and those who have retired on or after 31.3. 1979 who have retired prior to 31.3.1979 are not entitled to the benefit of Art. 240-AAA. Therefore the words on or after 31.3,1979 appearing in the said Article are illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14 of the constitutional of India. A prayer is made for quashing she said words from said Article.
3. Writ petition No. 935/83 has been filed on behalf of petitioner No. 1 in his personal capacity and on behalf of petitioner No. 2 as the Association. The writ petition involves the same question of law which is involved in writ petition No. 934/83 The Two writ petitions shall, therefore, be decided by a common judgment.
4. The state has filed counter affidavit on 4.4.1984 in writ petition No. 934/83. Thereafter on 20.4.1984 the writ petitions were admitted and posted for hearing. The writ petitions came up for hearing on 31.8.1984. The learned advocate General submitted that the reply affidavit filed in writ petition No. 934/83 be treated as reply affidavit in writ petition No. 935/83 also and he did not wish to file any further reply affidavit. The writ petitions, therefore, were heard on merits. In fact writ petition No. 934/83 only was argued and it was submitted that writ petition No. 935/83 being of similar nature be decided alongwith writ Petition No. 934/83 learned counsel for the parties agreed that judgment in writ Petition No. 934/83 will govern the disposal of write Petition No. 935/83 also.
5. The admitted facts, revealed from the pleadings, are that the petitioners have retired before 31.3.1979 and in the master of pension they were governed by the Rules pertaining to the grant of pension. Art. 240 A of Civil Service Regulations governed the petitioners. Before the year 1965 all Government servants were entitled to get pension at the rate of 50% of their last drawn salary. In 1965, however, the respondent modified the Pension Rules and by virtue of the modification Govt. servants were given option to receive by way of gratuity an amount equivalent to 15 months salary provided they had 30 years of qualifying service and 16 months salary as gratuity who had 32 years or more qualifying service. Those of the Government servants who opted for gratuity at the time of retirement were entitled to receive pension at the rate of the last drawn salary. In the year 1979 Pension Rules were further liberalised and by virtue of SRO-586 Art 240-AAA was added to the Central Service Regulation. However, this Article was made applicable only to those pensioners who retired on or after 31.2.1979. In this manner pensioners were categorised in two groups; one, who had retired before 31.3.1979 and other, who had retired on or after 31.3,1979. Classification made on the basis of date of retirement in Art. 240-AAA is therefore, challenged by the petitioners and justified by the respondent. The challenge is based on its being
