SUPREME COURT
(CASE LAW) ON REVISION
/ UPDATION OF PENSIONS-PART-III
THE
METICULOUS RESEARCH THAT CAN BE FOUND IN THE SINGULARLY SUPERB AND LANDMARK JUDGMENT OF THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN NAKARA’S CASE, “DOES NOT END THERE”. NOW, LOOK AT THE
OTHER EXAMPLE, IN NAKARA’S CASE ITSELF, WHEN IT SAYS, AS UNDER AT PARA 32
:
“HAVING
SUCCINCTLY FOCUSED OUR ATTENTION ON THE CONSPECTUS OF ELEMENTS AND INCIDENTS OF
PENSION, THE MAIN QUESTION MAY NOW BE TACKLED. BUT, THE APPROACH OF THE COURT
WHILE CONSIDERING SUCH MEASURE IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE. SINCE THE ADVENT OF
THE CONSTITUTION, “THE STATE ACTION MUST BE DIRECTED TOWARDS ATTAINING THE
GOALS SET OUT IN PART IV OF THE CONSTITUTION”, WHICH, WHEN ACHIEVED, WOULD
PERMIT US TO CLAIM THAT WE HAVE SET UP “A WELFARE STATE”. ARTICLE 38(1) ENJOINS
THE STATE TO STRIVE TO PROMOTE “WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE”, “BY SECURING AND
PROTECTING AS EFFECTIVELY AS IT MAY, A SOCIAL ORDER IN WHICH, JUSTICE SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL”---
“SHALL INFORM ALL INSTITUTIONS OF THE
NATIONAL LIFE. IN PARTICULAR, THE STATE SHALL STRIVE TO MINIMISE THE
INEQUALITIES IN INCOME AND ENDEAVOUR TO ELIMINATE INEQUALITIES IN STATUS,
FACILITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES. ARTICLE 39(D) ENJOINS A DUTY TO SEE THAT THERE IS
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN AND THIS DIRECTIVE SHOULD BE
UNDERSTOOD AND INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN
RANDHIR SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA.. REVEALING THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THIS FACET
OF EQUALITY, CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. SPEAKING FOR THE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER :
(SCC P. 619, PARA 1).
“NOW,
THANKS TO THE RISING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE EXPECTATIONS
AROUSED AS A CONSEQUENCE, AND THE FORWARD
LOOKING POSTURE OF THIS COURT,” “THE UNDERPRIVILEGED ALSO ARE CLAMOURING
FOR THEIR RIGHTS” AND “ARE SEEKING THE INTERVENTION OF THE COURT WITH TOUCHING
FAITH AND CONFIDENCE IN THE COURT”. THE JUDGES OF THE COURT HAVE A DUTY TO
REDEEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OATH AND DO JUSTICE NO LESS TO THE PAVEMENT-DWELLER
THAN TO THE GUEST OF THE FIVE-STAR HOTEL”. IN
CONTINUATION OF THE
SAME DISCUSSION IN
NAKARA’S CASE, HON’BLE
THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA SAID AS UNDER:
“PROCEEDING
FURTHER, THIS COURT OBSERVED THAT “WHERE ALL RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE
SAME”, “PERSONS HOLDING IDENTICAL POSTS MAY NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN THE
MATTER OF THEIR PAY”, “MERELY BECAUSE THEY BELONG TO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS”.
“IF THAT CAN’T BE DONE WHEN THEY ARE IN SERVICE”, “CAN THAT BE DONE DURING
THEIR RETIREMENT?” “EXPANDING THIS
PRINCIPLE, ONE CAN CONFIDENTIAL SAY THAT IF PENSIONERS FORM A CLASS”, “THEIR
COMPUTATION CANNOT BE BY DIFFERENT FORMULA”, “AFFORDING UNEQUAL TREATMENT”,
“SOLELY ON THE GROUND” “THAT SOME RETIRED EARLIER” AND “SOME RETIRE LATER”.
THE
CONTENT
OF THE OTHER PART OF THIS PARA CAN BE EASILY
UNDERSTOOD BY ALL. BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THE CONTENT OF “THAT PART OF
THE PARA MENTIONED HEREINBELOW” :
FROM:
“ARTICLE 39(D) ENJOINS A DUTY ..……SOME RETIRE LATER”.
THE
IDEA GIVEN HERE IS, THAT WHEN ARTICLE
39(D) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ENJOINS “A DUTY ON
THE “STATE” (ROUGHLY SPEAKING, “STATE” MEANS, “ALL GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR
UNDERTAKINGS”) TO SEE THAT “THERE IS EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK”, “BOTH FOR MEN
AND WOMEN”, “THERE SHOULD BE EQUAL PAY FOR THOSE WHO WORK IN DIFFERENT
DEPARTMENTS OF THE SAME GOVERNMENT” AND “THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCRIMINATION” ON
THE GROUND THAT, “SOME WORKED IN ONE DEPARTMENT” AND “SOME OTHERS WORKED IN
SOME OTHER DEPARTMENT”. BUT, “IT SHOULD BE NOTED HERE THAT THE EMPLOYMENT MUST
BE UNDER THE SAME ROOF”. EXPANDING THE PRINCIPLE FURTHER, HON’BLE THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA SAYS THAT THIS ARTICLE 39(D) OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA, ENJOINING A DUTY ON “THE
STATE” (“THE STATE”,AS DEFINED
IN ARTICLE 12
OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA) TO SEE THAT THERE IS
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AND INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF
THE JUDGMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN RANDHIR SINGH VS. UNION
OF INDIA, “WHEREIN HON’BLE THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA SAID” THAT, “IN VIEW OF THE RISING
SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONCISENESS AND THE EXPECTATIONS AROUSED AND THE FORWARD
LOOKING POSTURE OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”, “THE UNDERPRIVILEGED
PEOPLE ARE ALSO APPROACHING HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, “WITH TOUCHING
FAITH AND CONFIDENCE THEREIN”.
“BUT, HERE THE “MOST OPERATIVE PART” OF
THE JUDGMENT OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN RANDHIR SINGH V. UNION OF
INDIA”, “AS REPRODUCED IN DS NAKARA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA” IS :
“PROCEEDING
FURTHER, THIS COURT OBSERVED IN RANDHIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA THAT“ –
“WHERE ALL RELEVANT CONSIDERATION ARE SAME”,
“PERSONS HOLDING IDENTICAL POSTS MANY NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY”, “IN THE
MATTER OF THEIR PAY”, “MERELY BECAUSE THEY BELONG TO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS”.
I MAY ADD, AT THIS
STAGE, THAT THE SIMPLE
MEANING THAT CAN
BE GIVEN TO
THE ABOVE CONTENT, “IF
APPLIED TO THE
PENSIONER COMMUNITY OF
INDIA, AMOUNTS TO
THE FOLLOWING”:
“WHERE ALL RELEVANT
CONSIDERATIONS ARE SAME”, “PENSIONERS, WHO
RETIRED FROM THE
SAME ESTABLISHMENT”, “UNDER THE
SAME PENSION REGULATIONS”, “WITH THE
SAME LENGTH OF SERVICE”, “ARE ENTITLED
TO THE SAME
AMOUNT OF PENSION”, “IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR DATE
OF RETIREMENT”.
NOW,
AT THIS STAGE, I ONCE AGAIN COME BACK TO THE LOGIC AND THE PARALLEL DRAWN IN
NAKARA’S CASE, FROM RANDHIR SINGH’S CASE, BY REPRODUCING WHAT HON’BLE THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SAID IN NAKARA’S
CASE, AT PARA 32, “IN CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION”, WHICH
READS AS UNDER:
“IF
THAT CAN’T BE DONE”, “WHEN THEY ARE IN SERVICE”, “CAN THAT BE DONE DURING THEIR RETIREMENT?”
THE PRINCIPLE CONTAINED HEREIN IS –
“IF SALARIES OF
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES”, “HOLDING IDENTICAL POSTS”,
“IN THE SAME
ESTABLISHMENT SHOULD NOT BE
DIFFERENT”, “MERELY BECAUSE THEY
BELONG TO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS”,
“DURING THEIR SERVICE”, “CAN THE PENSIONS
OF THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS BE
PAID AT DIFFERENT
RATES”, “MERELY BECAUSE SOME
OF THEM RETIRED
ON SOME DATE”, “AND
SOME OTHERS RETIRED
ON SOME OTHER
DATE”, “AFTER THEIR RETIREMENT?”
IN CONTINUATION OF
THE SAME DISCUSSION, AT PARA
32 OF THE
JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE
THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA, IN NAKARA’S
CASE, HON’BLE THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA, SPEAKING
THROUGH HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE
D.A. DESAI, WHO DRAFTED THE JUDGEMENT
OF HON’BLE THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, IN
NAKARA’S CASE, SAYS
AS UNDER:
“EXPANDING THIS PRINCIPLE, ONE CAN
CONFIDENTLY SAY THAT”—
“IF PENSIONERS FORM A CLASS”, “THEIR COMPUTATION CANNOT BE BY DIFFERENT FORMULA”, “AFFORDING
UNEQUAL TREATMENT”, “SOLELY ON THE GROUND”, “THAT SOME RETIRED EARLIER”, AND
“SOME RETIRE LATER”.
THE CONCLUSIVE MEANING
THAT CAN BE
GIVEN TO THE
ABOVE CONTENT IS—
“ALL
PENSIONERS (OF COURSE, IN THIS
CONTEXT, ALL CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS) FORM A
CLASS”,”AND HENCE ALL
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
PENSIONERS”,”WHO PUT IN
SAME LENGTH OF
SERVICE”, ”EVEN THOUH THEY BELONG TO
DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS”, “ARE ENTITLED
TO THE SAME AMOUNT OF
PENSION”, “IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR
DATE OF RETIREMENT”.
NOW, IF “WE
APPLY THE SAME
PRINCIPLE”, “TO THE ENTIRE
PENSIONER COMMUNITY OF
INDIA”, ”AT LARGE”, IT
AMOUNTS TO THE
FOLLOWING CONTENT:
“WHERE
ALL RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS ARE
SAME”, “PENSIONERS, WHO RETIRED
FROM THE SAME
ESTABLISHMENT”, “UNDER THE SAME
PENSION REGULATIONS”, “WITH THE
SAME LENGTH OF SERVICE”, “ARE ENTITLED
TO THE SAME
AMOUNT OF PENSION”,
“IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR
DATE OF RETIREMENT”.