Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.20 13:55:44 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:8620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3602 of 2018 1. Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Mahavidyalayin Pensioners Sangh A Registered Society Duly Registered By Registrar Of Societies, Chhattisgarh, Bearing Registration No. 3011, Having Its Office At Flat N. 1/g Nathani Apartments, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Shri Vijay Chakravarty, S/o Late Suresh Chandra Chakravarty, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Flat No. 1/g, Nathani Apartments, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur 492007 Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner(s) 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Principal Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh Finance Naya Raipur Mahanadi Bhawan, Department, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, 3. State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary, Government Of Madhya Pradesh Finance Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh), District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 4. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Personnel, Pg And Pension Department Of Pensions And Pensioners Welfare, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. For Respondent No. 3 : None, though served For Respondent No. 4/ UOI : Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, CGC 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 19/02/2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly he pleased to call for the entire reconts pertaining to petitioners' case for its kind perusal 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugried order 28/02/2018 (Annexure P/-fssued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh by declaring the same to be illegal and inoperative in law. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revise and consolidate the pension/family pension payable to the petitioners by complying with and giving effect to the para 4.2 of the Notification 18.09.2008 approved and adopted for implementation by the State Government vide ita decision dated 18.09.2008 (संकल्प). 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioners i.c. pre-2006 retirees arrears of pension from 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008, along with interest. 10.5 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think Jelit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioners 10.6. That, the circular dated 31.08.2009 to the extent that there is no provision with regard to fixing of pension on revised pay scale is against the "Sankalp" and notifications issued by the Government of India and discriminative as such liable to be quashed by the Hon'ble Court. 3 10.7. That, the respondent State be kindly directed to frame pension rules in conformity with the "Sankalp" at per with Govt. Servent who retired on or after 1/1/2006 so that pensioner may not suffer any loss on account of revision of pay of pension after implementation of 6th pay commission. 2) Facts of the present case are that the pensioners of Government Colleges are members of petitioner-society and they have claimed benefits of 6th Pay Commission. It is pleaded that members of petitioner society, who retired after 01.01.2006 have been extended benefits of 6th Pay Commission whereas the members, who retired from services prior to 01.01.2006 have not been extended the aforestated benefit. Earlier, WP(S) No. 5333 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner-society,
Decision
which was disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2018 reserving liberty in favor of the petitioner-society to make a representation before the respondent authorities. Pursuant to the order dated 25.01.2018, the petitioner-society made a representation which was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 28.02.2018. 3) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner-society would submit that the State Government cannot create two classes of pensioners, namely, government servants who retired prior to 01.01.2006 and after 01.01.2006. He further submits that such classification is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr. Surendra Narayan Gupta Versus Principal Secretary, State of M.P. & Ors. and other connected matters reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4684. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out on 01.01.2000 and the liability was 4 apportioned between the two states according to the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. He further submits that the members of petitioner society who retired prior to 01.01.2006 cannot claim parity with those members who retired after 01.01.2006. He contends that the benefit of 6th Pay Commission was extended w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and at that time, most of the members of the petitioner society were superannuated, therefore, they were not entitled to get benefits. He further contends that Chhattisgarh is a small state and huge financial liability would burden the State Finance. He would submit that the classification based on cut-off date is permissible. He argues that according to Section 49 of the Act, 2000, the State of Madhya Pradesh should owe the liability to make payment to the pensioners who retired prior to 01.01.2006. 5) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India endorses the submissions made by State counsel. 6) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of All Manipur Pensioners Association Versus State of Manipur & Ors. reported in AIR- ONLINE 2019 SC 407 held that there was no valid justification in creating two classes, i.e., government servants who retired pre-1996 and post-1996. It was further held that for the purpose of the grant of revised pension, such classification has no nexus with the object and purpose for the grant of revised pension. It is also held that all the pensioners form one class and all were held entitled to pension as per pension rules. It will be apt to reproduce the relevant paras 8 and 8.1 herein below:- 5 8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion that there is no valid justification to create two classes viz, one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension. In our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. However, a valid classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cut-off date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied. In the present case, the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cut-off date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit. 8.1 As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute that as such a decision has been taken by the State Government to revise the pension keeping 6 in mind the increase in the cost of living. Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners irrespective of whether they have retired pre-1996 or post-1996. As observed hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class. Therefore, by such a classification/cut-off date the equals are treated as unequals and therefore such a classification which has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension is unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore the said classification was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. At this stage, it is required to be observed that whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not be applicable with respect to one and single class of persons, the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with respect to revision." 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the controversy/issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (AIR 1983 SC 130) (supra). The decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the case on hand. The Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in not following the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) and has clearly erred in reversing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby restored and it is held that all the pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement, viz. pre1996 retirees shall be entitled to revision in pension at par with those pensioners who retired post1996. The arrears be paid to the respective pensioners within a period of three months from today. 8) The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr. Surendra Narayan Gupta (supra) in paras 25 and 27 held as under:- 25. So far as the ground raised by the State regarding the financial burden is concerned, it is reiterated that it has already been taken care of by 7 the Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra). Whereas, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of pension as per 6th pay commission which was not in existence at the time of retirement of the petitioner, it is found that the State has not clarified in their reply as to how the non-grant of the benefits of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioner would be a distinguishing factor in the present case. And otherwise also, in the case of Smt. Kamla Jain (supra), this Court, in para 5 has already taken into account the effect that it is only after 01.01.1996, that the pay commission's recommendations were implemented, and as has been noted in Sultan Khan (supra) in which the decision in the case of Smt. Kamla Jain (supra) has been distinguished, and it is also observed in para 8 of Sultan Khan (supra) that the writ appeal as also an SLP against the order passed in the case of Smt. Kamla Jain (supra) have already been rejected, thus, the case of the petitioner would also be covered by the decision in the case of Smt. Kamla Jain (supra). 27. In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that in respect of the issue involved i.e., whether the petitioner, while being granted the revision of pension, can be treated differently only because he stood retired prior to 01.01.2006 vis-à-vis the persons who stood retired after 01.01.2006, in the light of the subsequent decision of Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra), the decision rendered by this Court in the case of P.V. Sreenivasaiah (supra) does not govern the field anymore. 9) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the aforementioned cases, the present petition is disposed of directing the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh to bear their respective share while making payment of pension according to the scheme of the 6th Pay Commission to the members of petitioner society within a period of 120 days. The State of Chhattisgarh would be at liberty to claim the share from the State of Madhya Pradesh for making payment according to the provisions entailed in Section 49 of 8 the Act, 2000. 10) It is made clear that members of petitioner society, who retired prior to creation of the State of Chhattisgarh i.e. 01.01.2000, shall not be entitled to claim benefits of the 6th Pay Commission by the present petition and they would be at liberty to take recourse to law. 11) With the aforesaid direction(s), the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Ajinkya Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE