* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO !

Saturday, September 12, 2015

N PRADEEPKUMAR. ADVOCATE

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”.