Differentiation in pension benefits based on financial constraints is constitutionally valid, affirming the balance between fiscal policy and equality in treatment under law.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujoy Paul, ACJ.)

These intra-Court Appeals take exception to the common order passed in W.P.Nos.14315, 15944 and 14641 of 2021, dated 20.12.2024 decided along with other matters.

2. The Writ Petitions were filed by retired employees assailing G.O.Ms.Nos.55 and 56, dated 11.06.2021. The main grievance of the petitioners/appellants is that the respondents/State while issuing the said G.Os. made it clear that the revised consolidated basic pension shall come into force with effect from 01.07.2018 notionally and monetary benefits shall be allowed w.e.f. 01.04.2020. Thus, no difference of Retirement Gratuity/ Encashment of Earned Leave shall be payable to the retired employees who retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020.

Contention of the appellants:

3. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the pensioners belong to one homogeneous class. The respondents/State by putting the said condition and cut-off date divided a homogeneous class and made an attempt to create a class within the class. This hits Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot be treated to be a valid classification. There is no rationale behind the same, neither there exist any object sought to be achieved.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants, by taking this Court to the order of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, urged that after considering the various judgments of the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge came to hold that the judgments are indeed applicable, but opined that the prescription of cut-off date for not extending actual monetary benefits is not bad in law.

5. Criticizing the aforesaid findings, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the curtains are finally drawn on this issue by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association v. State of Manipur , [(2020) 14 Supreme Court Cases 625] and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra , [(2023) 11 Supreme Court Cases 186] . In view of these authoritative pronouncements, wherein previous Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in DS Nakara v. Union of India , [ 1983 (1) SCC 305 ] was considered, learned Single Judge has certainly erred in not interfering with the offending portion of G.Os and erred in declining the relief.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, by placing reliance on Article 366 (17) of the Constitution, submits that definition of pension is wide enough to include gratuity and retiral dues. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge was not justified in not interfering with the impugned G.Os.

Contention of the State:

7. Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the State on the other hand supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and urged that the learned Single Judge has considered the judgments cited by present appellants in the aforesaid paragraphs as well as the other judgments of the Supreme Court and rightly came to hold that the recommendation of Pay Commission is not as such binding on the Government and financial constraints is one of the relevant considerations for prescribing a cut-off date. Thus, on that relevant consideration if Government has decided not to extend the actual benefit for a particular period and prescribed a cut-off date, it cannot be said to be unconstitutional in nature.

8. To buttress the aforesaid c