Kamta Pd. Sharma vs State of U.P. and Others

Paritosh K. Mukherjee, J.—The non-finalization and non-payment of pensionary benefit is the subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.

It is the case of the Petitioner that he was appointed as teacher on 1.7.1941, and, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Principal with effect from 14.5.1958. Petitioner has ultimately retired with effect from 30.6.1976. Till the dale of moving of the present writ petition, pensionary benefit of the Petitioner has not been finalized by the Respondents.

Petitioner had filed a representation in Hindi, which is set out at Annexure 9 to the writ petition. According to the Petitioner, the said representation has not been disposed of by the Respondent authorities by passing a "speaking order".

It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the representation of the Petitioner has not been properly considered by the Respondent authorities, the order passed by them is a nullity in the eye of law as it contains no reason as to why the pension has not been given.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that pension has been made applicable to all the employees with effect from 1.8.1977 but the Petitioner has been discriminated.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel referred to the observations of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), . In paragraph 42 of the said judgment, Hon''ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as follows:

If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational principle? The classification has to be based, as is well-settled, on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to Government servants, then those who redred earlier cannot be worst off than those who retire later. Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to give something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory. To illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in the same pay bracket, the average emolument was the same and both had put in equal number of years of service. How does a fortuitous circumstance of retiring a day earlier or a day later will permit totally unequal treatment in the matter of pension?

Learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhuwan Chandra Joshi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1987 UPLBEC 1559, wherein similar view has been taken by, inter alia, directing the Respondents to admit the Petitioners to the benefit of new Pension Scheme in terms of the Government order dated 12th October, 1984, and directions were passed accordingly.

In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the courts of law, the Respondent authorities are directed to apply the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments and give the Petitioner personal hearing in disposing of the representation of the Petitioner, set out at Annexure 9 to the writ petition.

Petitioner is directed to supply an extra copy of the aforesaid representation for ready reference alongwith certified copy of this order to the Respondent authorities within a period of fortnight from today.

It is desired that if such a representation is filed alongwith a certified copy of this order, the Respondent No. 5, Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra shall give personal hearing to the Petitioner, and shall dispose of the Petitioner''s representation by passing a reasoned order, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order alongwith representation.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of finally.