Ratilal Hiralal Patel vs State

A.S. Qureshi, J.—This petition is filed by the petitioners who were in Government service and who have now retired. They are eligible for

pension under a scheme of the State Government previously in force. The contention raised by the petitioners in this petition is that the State

Government has evolved a liberalised scheme of pension for its superannuated employees by various resolutions and that the petitioners are entitled

to get the benefits thereunder. The State Government has by its resolution No. PCR/5175/ 29/M dated 29-10-1975, and resolution No. NVN.

1079/1688-P dated 5-7-1979 and resolution No. NVN-1079/ 1598-P dated 12-7-1979 brought about certain liberalisation in the. pension of its

employees. In the aforesaid resolutions the Government had mentioned the dates on which those resolutions were to come in force which may for

the sake of convenience be referred as cut-off dates. In the case of first resolution dated 29-10-75 the cut off date was specified as 1-1-1973. By

the second resolution dated 5-7-79 the. cut-off date was mentioned to be 30-9-77 and by the third resolution dated 12-7-79 the cut-off date

specified was 31-3-79. According to the, said resolutions, those Government servants who retired after the cut-off date were eligible to get

pension under the relevant resoultion with the result that those Government servants who had retired prior to the cut-off dates were not eligible to

get the benefit of the liberalisation in the Pension Scheme brought about by that particular resolution. The present petitioners have challenged this

part of the resolution wherein the benefits of the liberalised pension scheme were to be restricted to only the employees retiring after the cut-off

date.

Mr. S.N. Shelat, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Government policy in restricting the benefits of the aforesaid liberalised

scheme of pension under the said resolution to only those Government servants who retired after the cut-off date creates an irrational classification

between the servants who retired before and after the cutoff date. Mr. Shelat has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and

Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), wherein the Supreme Court has gone into this question in respect of the similar pension liberalisation scheme

evolved by the Union of India in respect of its own servants. The Supreme Court has held in clear terms that the classification sought by allowing

the benefits of the liberalised pension scheme to the servants retiring after the cut-off date is an irrational classification and therefore, it is

discriminatory in nature and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has considered this question

from various angles and has decided that the object and purpose of bringing about a liberalised scheme of pension is to obviate hardship faced by

the retired Government servants on account of ever increasing cost of living and high degree of inflation. In this respect, the Supreme Court has

pointed out that all the Government servants stand on the same footing irrespective of whether they retired before or after the cut-off date.

The Supreme Court has also held that the fixation of the cut-off date is arbitrary in nature and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. The

decision of the Supreme Court is fully applicable to this case although the Supreme Court decision was in respect of the application to the

liberalised pension scheme of the Union of India, whereas, in the present petition, the pension scheme under challenge is that of the State

Government. That makes no difference because the State Government has categorically stated in its letter dated 7-8-81 Ref. No. NBN.

1081/1575/ 5 in reply to the representation made by or on behalf of some of the petitioners that the State Government has adopted the liberalised

pension policy of the Union of India. Hence the ratio of the Supreme Court would apply to the facts of the present case.

Mr. M.A. Panchal, the learned Counsel for the respondent-State is unable to point out any distinguishing point between the Central Government

Pension Scheme and that of the State Government Pension Scheme and hence he found it difficult to distinguish the aforesaid Supreme Court

judgment. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners have to be upheld and the relief claimed by the petitioners should be granted. It is,

therefore, held that the benefits of the liberalised pension scheme as evolved by the State Government in its aforesaid resolutions will be applicable

not only to the Government servants who are superannuated on or after the cut-off date, but those benefits will be available also to the Government

servants who have been superannuated prior to the cut-off dates mentioned in these resolutions. In other words, all the pensioners who are

covered by the aforesaid resolution would stand on the same footing and shall be treated equally. There shall be no discrimination among them on

the ground of their date of retirement.

It is directed that the State Government will implement the aforesaid liberalised pension scheme in respect of the petitioners and other pensioners

similarly situated within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ. The writ shall issue immediately.

Rule is made absolute. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

The petitioner No. 1 having died during the pendency of this petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the name of the

petitioner No. 1. The permission is granted. The name of petitioner No. 1 stands deleted.