IMPORTANT POINT
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 established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner, who retired from the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) on 31-01-2015, is aggrieved with the effect and consequences on his pensionary benefits caused by the Notification of the Meghalaya Energy Corporation Limited (Revision of Pay) Regulation, 2015, which was notified on 15-05-2017, which he alleges has resulted in Executive Engineers who were junior to the writ petitioner but who retired before 01-01-2015, drawing a higher pension.

2. The writ petitioner retired from the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical) on 31-01-2015 when his basic pay was Rs. 56,330/- and the prevailing norm for fixation of pension was 50% of the average pay of the last 6 months, including Special Pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 27,380/- per month. After computation of the last 6 months pay of the petitioner, 50% of the average emolument worked out to Rs. 27,948.33/- and accordingly his pension was fixed at Rs. 27,380/- with effect 01-02-2015 which was the maximum amount payable.

3. The respondent corporation vide Notification dated 15-05-2017, notified the Meghalaya Energy Corporation Limited (Revision of Pay) Regulation, 2015, revising the pay scale of its employees with effect 01-01-2015 and consequently by an Office Memorandum of the same day, the pensionary benefits of the employees stood revised with effect from 01-01-2015. Regulation/Paragraph 5 of the said OM dated 15-05-2017 dealt with the Revision of Pension/Family Pension and Principles of Fixation. Paragraph 5 (i) of the OM provided that Pension/Family Pension will be determined by multiplying the existing Basic Pension/Family Pension as on 01-01-2015 by a factor of 1.82, whereas Paragraph 5(iv) of the OM provided the computation and fixation of the employees who retired within 6 months from the date of coming over to the revised scale of pay i.e., MeECL (RoP) Regulation, 2015.

4. Mr. S.Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the Revision of Pay implemented by the respondent corporation with effect from 01-01-2015, his revised pay for the month of January 2015, was fixed at Rs. 1,06,200/- and the respondent corporation relying on Paragraph 5 (iv) of the OM dated 15-05-2017, revised the pension of the writ petitioner with effect from 01-01-2015. Learned counsel submits that taking into account the last 6 months including the last month at the revised pay, the petitioner's pension was fixed at Rs. 44,330/-. This, the learned counsel contends, has created an anomalous situation vis-a-vis the cases of the Executive Engineers who retired before 01-01-2015, as their pension has been revised by applying the principle contained in Paragraph 5 (i) of the OM i.e., by multiplying their existing basic pension by a factor of 1.82 which has resulted in them drawing a higher pension. The learned counsel submits that, as he received the benefit of the revised pay only for the month of January 2015, in comparison to other Executive Engineers who were getting the same pension earlier before the said revision, but retired before 01-01-2015, his basic pension is much lower than them. To illustrate this point, the learned counsel has referred to a chart which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition showing this anomaly.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the classification introduced by Paragraph 5 of the OM dated 15-05-2017, is unreasonable and unjustified and has no reasonable nexus with the objects sought to be achieved, as the same has resulted in discrimination in the revision of pension wherein, a junior is drawing higher pension than a senior, and as such he contends, the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

6. Mr. S. Sen, in support of his arguments, has placed heavy reliance on the judgment of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India. (198