SUPREME COURT (CASE-LAW) ON REVISION
/ UPDATION OF PENSIONS—PART-I
Now, Whereas Pensions Of Central Government Retirees / Pensioners And State Government
Retirees / Pensioners Are Updated /
Revised At Every Pay Revision, Pensions Of
Retirees Of Many
Instrumentalities Of “The State”( “The State”, As Defined In Article
12 Of The Constitution Of India) Are Not Updated / Revised At Every Wage Revision / Pay Revision For
Their Employees . Hon’ble The Supreme
Court Of India Stressing The Need For Revision / Updation Of Pensions Of The
Pensioners Of “The State”(“The State”,As Defined In Article 12 Of
The Constitution Of India) “And Its Instrumentalities”, Categorically Stated “In Countless
Judgments Thereof”, “That The Benefits Of Pay Revision / Wage Revision” “Must Be Passed On To The Existing
Pensioners Also”. First And Foremost Amongst Them All, Is The
5 Judge Constitution Bench Judgment Of Hon’ble The Supreme Court Of India In
D.S. Nakara And Others Vs. Union Of India”,“The Ratio Of Which Is Being
Followed By Hon’ble The Supreme Court Of India In All The Subsequent Judgments
Thereof”. I Would Like To Acquaint
My Fellow Pensioners
“With The Case-Law Of Hon’ble The Supreme Court Of India On Revision /
Updation Of Pensions”.
To-Day “Many
Instrumentalities Of “The
State”(“The State”, As Defined In
Article 12 Of The
Constitution Of India),
Are Paying Different
Kinds / Types Of Pensions
To Their Pensioners”,
“Based On Their
Dates Of Retirements”. There Is “Not A Single Valid,
Justifiable And Cogent Reason”
Forthcoming From Those Instrumentalities
Of “The State”, “For Dividing
Their Pensioners / Retirees”,
“Who Retired There From” “At
Different Dates”, “Except Their
Decision To Pay Something More To Some Pensioners", "Who Retired
Subsequent To A Specified Date”, “Simultaneously, Denying The Same To Those Who
Retired Prior To That Specified Date". This Attitude Of
“The State”(“The State”, As
Defined In Article 12 Of The
Constitution Of India), And Its
Instrumentalities Had Been Spurned And Strongly Denounced
By Hon’ble The Supreme Court Of India In D.S. Nakara And
Others. Versus Union Of India,, In The Following Words :
“If It Appears To Be Indisputable, 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 The
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”. 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 Retire Subsequent To That
Date". If The Liberalisation Was Considered Necessary “For Augmenting
Social Security In Old Age To Government Servants”, “Then Those Who Retired
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 Giving 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 Emoluments 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 ? One Retiring A Day Earlier, “Will Have To Be
Subject To A Ceiling Of Rs. 8100/- P.A.” And “Average Emoluments To Be Worked
Out On 36 Months’ Salary”, “While The Other Will Have A Ceiling Of Rs. 12,000/-
P.A.” And “Average Emoluments Will Be Computed On The Basis Of Last 10 Months’
Average”. “The Artificial Division Stares Into Face” And Is “Unrelated To Any
Principle" And Whatever Principle, If There Be Any, "Has Absolutely
No Nexus To The Objects Sought To Be Achieved" By Liberalizing The Pension
Scheme. In Fact This Arbitrary Division Has Not Only No Nexus To The
Liberalized Pension Scheme, But It Is Counter -Productive And Runs
"Counter To The Whole Gamut Of Pension Scheme". The Equal Treatment "Guaranteed In
Article 14 Is Wholly Violated", In As Much As The Pension Rules Being
Statutory In Character, Since The Specified Date, "The Rules Accord
Differential & Discriminatory Treatment To Equals", In The Matter Of
Computation Of Pension. “A 48 Hours’ Difference In Matter Of Retirement Would
Have A Traumatic Effect”. “Division Is
Thus Both Arbitrary And Unprincipled.”Therefore, The Classification Does Not
Stand The Test Of Article 14.
Further, "The Classification Is
Wholly Arbitrary", Because We Do Not Find A "Single Acceptable Or
Persuasive Reason For This Division". This Arbitrary Action "Violated
The Guarantee Of Article 14".
Also Hon’ble The Supreme Court Of
India Strongly Disapproving Of Payment Of Different Kinds Of Pensions, “Based
On Dates Of Retirement”, "Who Retired Prior To A Certain Date" And
Who Retire "Subsequent To A Certain Date", Observed As Under At Para
35 In D.S. Nakara And Others Versus. Union Of India :
“With This Background, Let Us Now
Turn To The Challenge Posed In These Petitions. The Challenge Is Not To The
Validity Of The Pension Liberalization Scheme. The Scheme Is Wholly Acceptable
To The Petitioners; Nay, They Are Ardent Supporters Of It. Nay Further They
Seek The Benefit Of It. The Petitioners Challenge Only That Part Of The Scheme,
“By Which Its Benefits Are Admissible To Those”, "Who Retire From Service
After A Certain Date". In Other
Words, They Want That The Scheme "Must Be Uniformly Enforced",
"With Regard To All Pensioners" "For The Purpose Of Computation
Of Pension", "Irrespective Of The Date When The Government Servant
Retired", Subject To The Only Condition That He Was Governed By The 1972 Rules. No Doubt,
“The Benefit Of The Scheme Will Be Available From The Specified Date”,
“Irrespective Of The Fact” "When The Concerned Government Servant Actually
Retired From Service”.
Hon’ble The Supreme Court Of India
Held As Under, In The Selfsame Context, In The Above Case At Paras
37, 38 And 46. :
Para 37 : “If Such Be The Goals Of Pension, If Such Be The
“Welfare State” Which We Propose To Set
Up, If Such Be The Goals Of Socialism And Conceding That Any “Welfare Measure”
May, Consistent With Economic Capacity
Of The State, “Be Progressively Augmented With Wider Width And A Longer
Canvas”, “Yet When The Economic Means Permit The Augmentation”, Should Some Be
Left Out For The Sole Reason That While
In The Formative Years Of The Nascent State They Contributed Their Mite”, But
“When The Fruits Of Their Labour Led To The Flowering Of Economic Development
And Higher Gross National Produce Bringing In Larger Revenue” And “Therefore
Larger Cake Is Available”, “Would They Be Denied Any Share Of It ?” “Indisputably”, "Viewed From Any Angle
Pensioners For Payment Of Pension Form A Class”.
Also, Hon’ble The Supreme Court Of
India, Strongly “Denouncing The Attitude Of “The State” (“The State”, As Defined In Article 12
Of The Constitution Of India) And Its Instrumentalities Of Paying Different Kinds
Of Pensions”, To Their Pensioners,
“Based On Their Dates Of Retirement”, Held As Under At Paras 38 And
46 In D.S. Nakara’s Case :
Para 38 : “What Then Is The Purpose In Prescribing The
Specified Date "Vertically Dividing The Pensioners", Between
"Those Who Retired Prior To The Specified Date" And Those "Who
Retire Subsequent To That Date?" That Poses The Further Question, “Why Was
The Pension Scheme Liberalized?” “What
Necessitated Liberalization Of The Pension Scheme ?”
Para 46 : “Only The
Pension Will Have To Be Recomputed In The Light Of The Formula Enacted In The
Liberalised Pension Scheme And Effective From The Date, The Revised Scheme
Comes Into Force. And “Beware That It Is Not A New Scheme”, “It Is Only A
Revision Of An Existing Scheme”. “It Is Not A New Retiral Benefit”. “It Is An
Upward Revision Of An Existing Benefit”. “If It Was A Wholly New Concept”, “A
New Retiral Benefit”, One Could Have Appreciated An Argument That Those Who Had
Already Retired Could Not Expect It. It Could Have Been Urged That It Is An
Incentive To Attract The Fresh Recruits. “Pension Is A Reward For Past
Service”. It Is “Undoubtedly A Condition Of Service”, “But Not An Incentive To
Attract New Entrants”, “Because If It Was To Be Available To New Entrants
Only”, “It Would Be Prospective At Such
Distance Of Thirty-Five Years Since Its Introduction”. But “It Covers All Those
In Service, Who Entered Into Thirty-Five
Years Back”. “Pension Is Thus Not An Incentive But A Reward For Past Service”.
“And Revision Of An Existing Benefit
Stands On A Different Footing Than A New Retiral Benefit”. And “Even In The
Case Of New Retiral Benefit Of Gratuity Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act,
1972”, “Past Service Was Taken Into Consideration”. Recall At This Stage The
Method Adopted When Pay Scales Are Revised. Revised Pay Scales Are Introduced
From A Certain Date. “All Existing Employees Are Brought On To The Revised
Scales By Adopting A Theory Of Fitments And Increments”, “For Past Service”.
“In Other Words, Benefit Of Revised Scales”, “Is Not Limited To Those Who Enter
Service Subsequent To The Date Fixed For Introducing Revised Scales”, “But The
Benefit Is Extended To All Those In Service Prior To That Date”. “This Is Just
And Fair”. Now If Pension, As We View It, “Is Some Kind Of Retirement Wages”,
“For Past Service”, “Can It Be Denied To Those Who Retired Earlier”, “Revised
Retirement Benefits, Being Available To Future Retirees Only?”
Explanatory Note: Now, “Look At The Intrinsic Beauties” And The “Intensely
Incisive Interpretative Analysis Of Hon’ble The Supreme Court Of India”,
“Speaking Through Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.A. Desai”, “That Brilliant
And Scholarly Judge Of Hon’ble
The Supreme Court Of India”, “Who Drafted The
Judgement Of Hon’ble The Supreme
Court Of India In Nakara’s Case”, “In
Drawing Parallels From Pay Revisions And Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972”, “To
Stress And To Drive Home The Point”, “That The Benefits Of Pay Revision / Wage
Revision Have To Be Passed On To The Existing Pensioners Also”. Let Me List Them
Out One After The Other.
1.
“And
Beware That It Is Not A New Scheme”, “It Is Revision Of An Existing Scheme”.
2.
“It
Is Not A New Retiral Benefit”. “It Is Upward Revision Of An Existing Benefit”.
3.
If
It Was A Wholly New Concept, One Could Have Appreciated An Argument That Those
Who Had Already Retired Could Not Expect It.
4.
It
Could Have Been Urged That It Is An Incentive To Attract The Fresh Recruits.
“Pension Is A Reward For Past Service”.
Remember My
Friends, And Carefully
Go Through The
Content Of The
Above Para, Which
Says:
“And Beware That It Is Not A New
Scheme”, “It Is Revision Of An Existing Scheme”. “It Is Not A New Retiral
Benefit”. “It Is Upward Revision Of An Existing Benefit”. If It Was A Wholly
New Concept, “One Could Have “Appreciated An Argument” That “Those Who Had
Already Retired Could Not Expect It”. “It Could Have Been Urged That It Is An
Incentive To Attract The Fresh Recruits”. “Pension Is A Reward For Past
Service”.
To
Be Continued.