All Manipur Pensioners Association by Its Secretary vs The State of Manipur and Others

Constitution of India– Arts.14 and 16 – Twin test for valid discrimination/classification – When not satisfied – Discussed.

Constitution of India – Art.16 – Test for valid classification – Held: 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.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1.1 The State of Manipur has adopted the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules to be applicable to the State of Manipur. Therefore, all the government servants retired in accordance with the provisions of the Pension Rules and after completing qualifying service are entitled to the pension/pensionary benefits.While passing the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has not followed the decision of Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara case, considering some of the observations made by this Court in the subsequent decisions in the cases of R. Veerasamy; Amar Nath Goyal and P.N. Menon to the effect that the decision in the case of D.S. Nakara is one of the limited application and there is no scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all schemes made by the retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension irrespective of the date of retirement. It is not in dispute that the State Government has adopted the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, to be applicable to the State of Manipur. The State has also come out with the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977. It is also not in dispute that subject to completing the qualifying service the government servants retired in accordance with the pension rules are entitled to pension. Therefore, as such, all the pensioners form only one homogeneous class. Therefore, it can be said that all the pensioners form only one class as a whole. By not following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara, considering some of the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, namely P.N.Menon and other decisions, the Division Bench of the High Court has not at all considered the distinguishable facts in the aforesaid decisions. [Paras 6.1, 7.2 and 7.4][916-F-G; 917-C-D; 918-B-C; 921-B-C]

1.2 Similarly, the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Hari Ram Gupta and Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu also shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in not appreciating and/or considering the distinguishable facts in the cases of Hari Ram Gupta; R. Veerasamy; Amar Nath Goyal; P.N. Menon and Amrit Lal Gandhi. [Paras 7.8, 7.9] [922-D-E]

1.3 Even otherwise on merits also, 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. Such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form a 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. Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. 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. 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. Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners irrespective of whether they have retired pre-1996 or post-1996.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. [Paras 8, 8.1] [922-E-H; 923-A-G]

1.4 The controversy/issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara. The decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara 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 and has clearly erred in reversing the judgment and order of the Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the Single Judge is hereby restored and it is held that all the pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement, viz. pre-1996 retirees shall be entitled to revision in pension at par with those pensioners who retired post-1996. The arrears be paid to the respective pensioners within a period of three months from today. [Para 9] [923-H; 924-A-C]

D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India

(1983) 1 SCC 305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165 – followed. Hari Ram Gupta (D) through L.R. Kasturi Devi v. State of U.P. (1998) 6 SCC 328 : [1998] 3 SCR 854;

Ex-Services League v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC

104 : [1991] 1 SCR 158; Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 2 SCC 772 : [2013] 4 SCR 883 – held inapplicable.

T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy & Others (1999)

3 SCC 414 : [1999] 2 SCR 221; State of Punjab and Others v. Amar Nath Goyal & Others (2005) 6 SCC

754 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 549 ; Union of India v. P.N. Menon (1994) 4 SCC 68 ; State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi (1997) 2 SCC 342 : [1997] 1 SCR 121 – distinguished.