Point of Law: Classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shobh Nath Pandey and Sri Kaushlendra Yadav, Advocates for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Useful Assistance was provided by Law Trainee/ Clerk (Ms. Shama Parveen) of this Court.

2. By means of first writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.2306 (S/S) of 2004, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Government Orders dated 20.07.2001, 08.08.2001 and 03.09.2001, contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition, to the extent they provide cut off date as 01.07.2001 for the grant of the benefit of the amended pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000, by declaring it arbitrary and unconstitutional

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties to extend the benefit of the amended pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 with effect from 01.01.1996 in accordance with the earlier Government Order dated 10th July, 1998, contained in Annexure No.4 to the writ petition and to fix the pension of the petitioner accordingly at their respective basic pay."

3. By means of second writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.4953 (S/S) of 2006, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.09.2005, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned government order dated 03.09.2001, contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, to the extent the petitioners have been deprived from getting the benefit of revision of the pay-scale in Vth Pay Commission Report (Central) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and thereafter the pensionery benefits accordingly.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the opposite parties to allow the benefit of Vth Pay Commission Report (Central) to the petitioners and thereby the pay of the petitioners be accordingly fixed in the revised scale on 01.01.1996 and thereafter the pensionery benefits of the petitioners be computed accordingly and the arrears of the pensionery benefits be also given to them within some reasonable time which may be 2 weeks."

4. In both the writ petitions, the question of law to be considered is the same and, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties both the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment and order.

5. The question to be considered is that as to whether the benefit of pay-scale revision which has been extended with effect from 01.01.1996 can be restricted with effect from 01.07.2001 without having any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

6. Ignoring the unnecessary facts of both the cases the relevant facts to adjudicate the controversy in question are being considered.

7. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have retired after 01.01.1996 and before 01.07.2001. However, by mans of Government Order dated 20.07.2001 and subsequent Government Orders the benefit of pay-scale revision has been restricted with effect from 01.07.2001 saying that the benefit of pay-scale revision would be extended with effect from 01.01.1996 to those employees who have retired on or after 01.07.2001. All those Government Orders have been assailed on the ground that those Government Orders are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for creating class within the class for no cogent reason.

8. In the first writ petition, all the relevant Government Orders dated 20.07.2001, 08.08.2001 and 03.09.2001 have been assailed, whereas in the second writ petition only one Government Order dated 03.09.2001 has been assailed and the order dated 22.09.2005 has been assailed whereby the benefit, so prayed by the petitioners, has been rejected b