SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(All) 509

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.L. BHAT, J.
Shital Prasad Tripathi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3754 of 1990
Decided on : Aug 22, 1990

Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
Radhey Shyam

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the classification made by the State based on dates of retirement and the subsequent Government order denying pensionary benefits to retired employees was invalid and opposed to the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the constitution.

Headnote:

Article 14 - Pensionary Benefits - The court held that the classification made by the State on the basis of dates of retirement among the retired government servants was not reasonable and opposed to the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the constitution. The subsequent Government order by which such a classification was made was rendered invalid as it infringed the equality clause of the constitution. The petitioner's service in the non-government institution was to be counted towards his service for the purpose of giving him pensionary and gratuity benefits by the State.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was denied the benefit of service in a Private School based on a Government order that classified retired employees based on their dates of retirement, allowing only those who retired between specific dates to receive pensionary benefits for previous service in non-government institutions.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the classification made by the State to be unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The subsequent Government order was declared invalid, and the petitioner's service in the non-government institution was to be counted towards his pension and gratuity benefits.

Issues: The issue was the validity of the classification made by the State based on dates of retirement and the subsequent Government order that denied pensionary benefits to retired employees based on their retirement dates.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the classification made by the State was not rational and opposed to the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the constitution. The subsequent Government order was rendered invalid as it infringed the equality clause of the constitution.

Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the respondents were directed to count the petitioner's service in the non-government institution for the purpose of computing his pension and gratuity. The subsequent Government orders were declared non est, and the respondents were directed to compute the petitioner's pension and gratuity within three months from the date of communication of the order.

JUDGMENT

M.L. Bhat

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner's case is that he is not allowed the benefit of service in a Private School on the basis of some Government order by which the previous Government order was superseded and it was desired that those, who retired between 13-6-1979 and 10-1-1986, shall only be given pensionary benefit by including their previous service in non-government institutions, in case they have deposited the shares of the employer towards the Provident Fund etc. The Govt., order, therefore, makes it possible only for those persons, who have retired between 13-6-1979 and 10-1-1986 to get the benefit of previous service in non-government institutions and it excludes the others from such benefits. The classification would mean that anybody, who has retired before 13-6-1979 or after 10-1-1986 will not be given the benefit of service in non-government institution. The classification made by the State on the basis of dates of retirement among the retired government servants does not appear to be reasonable and is opposed to the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the constitution.

The Supreme Court in the case of D. S. Nakara, reported in 1983 SC 130 has dealt with a similar question where different pensionary benefits were granted to the retired employees on the basis of their date of retirement. The classification made by the Government in that case on the basis of dates of retirement of the employees was held to be opposed to the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in that authority will squarely apply to the facts of this case also because on the dates of retirement a classification is sought to be made between the retired employees. Some employees, who have retired between particular dates, are given benefits of the previous service in the nongovernment institutions and others, who have retired before or after the said dates or denied the said benefits. This type of classification does not seem to be rational and amounts to undoing the equality. This miscroscopic classiciation is not permissible by the constitution and is opposed to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly the subsequent Govt, order by which such a classification is made is rendered invalid as it infringes equality clause of the constitution. The result is that the petitioner's service in the non-government institution has to be counted towards his service for the purpose of giving him pensionary and gratuity benefits by the State.

3. According this writ petition would succeed on the short point and the classification made by the State that the benefit of inclusion of service in non-government institutions to such of the employees who have retired between 13-6-1979 and 10-1-1986 and others will not be given the said benefits is held to be bad and the classification is declared invalid.

4. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the petitioner's service is non-government institution for the purpose of computation of his pension and gratuity and treat the Govt, orders No. (Shiksha Anubhag 2) 3and91/15-2-38-3/75/77 dated 16-9-1988 and No. Ma. Pa. 370/15-2-85-36/.73/77 dated 10-1-86 in relation to the petitioner; as non est. Accordingly the order dated 1-11-1989 passed by the respondent No. 2, Annexure 2 to the writ petition, stands quashed. The respondents will compute the pension and gratuity of the petitioner with three months from the date of communication of this order to them, in accordance with the directions given J hereinabove.

With these directions this writ petition is disposed of finally. There will be no order as to costs.

5. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties within 48 hours on payment of usual charges.

Petition allowed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top