Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 – rule 3(3) – Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Writ Petition was filed before the High Court challenging the Rule 3(3) of Pension Rules, 2009 – Rule 3(3) provides “the revised rate of pension within the above limits of minimum and maximum pension shall be computed notionally from 1st January 2006 or, as the case may be, from the date of superannuation…but financial computation will be admissible from 1st January 2009…” - It was the case on behalf of the writ petitioner that there is no reasonable excuse to deny the actual benefit of pension for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 – The High Court has struck down Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009 being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the State that because of heavy financial burden and there being financial constraints, the State is not in a position to bear the heavy burden of additional revised pension – On appeal, held: When specific statistics were provided before the High Court justifying its policy decision and the financial crunch/financial constraint was pleaded, there was no reason for the High Court to doubt the same – Financial constraint can be a valid ground for fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefit of increased quantum of death-cum-retirement gratuity – Fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration – In the instant case, the cut-off date has been fixed as 01.01.2009 on a very valid ground i.e., financial constraint – Therefore, the High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009 being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009 has been struck down by the High Court by holding that the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the State that because of heavy financial burden and there being financial constraints, the State is not in a position to bear the heavy burden of additional revised pension and therefore, the State formulated a policy decision to the effect that the revised pension shall be paid from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 notionally and actual revision of pension shall be disbursed from 01.01.2009 only. A detailed affidavit was filed on behalf of the State justifying the above policy decision providing/granting the revision of pay from 01.01.2009 only and to grant the benefit of revised pension notionally from 01.01.2006 or from the date of retirement till 31.12.2008. However, without giving any cogent reasons, the High Court has observed that the foundation i.e., the financial crunch has not satisfied the Court at all when specific statistics were provided before the High Court justifying its policy decision and the financial crunch/financial constraint was pleaded, there was no reason for the High Court to doubt the same. As such the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order is contrary to the averments made in affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. From the affidavit filed before the High Court reproduced hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that a conscious policy decision was taken by the State Government to grant the benefit of revision of pension notionally from 01.01.2006 or from the date of superannuation till 31.12.2008 and to pay/grant the benefit of revision of pension actually from 01.01.2009, which was based on their financial crunch/financial constraint. Whether the financial crunch/financial constraint due to additional financial burden can be a valid ground to fix a cut-off date for the purpose of granting the actual benefit of revision of pension/pay has been dealt with and/or considered by this Court in the case of Amar Nath Goyal. In the aforesaid decision, it is observed and held by this Court that financial constraint can be a valid ground for fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefit of increased quantum of death-cum-retirement gratuity. While applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case, the cut-off date has been fixed as 01.01.2009 on a very valid ground i.e., financial constraint. Therefore, the High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009 being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Paras 5 & 6][20-D-F; 21-G-H; 22-E-H; 24-D]
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Amar Nath Goyal and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 754 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 549 - relied on.
State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj (2006)
5 SCC 65 : [2006] 5 JT 131; State of Punjab v. Boota Singh (2000) 3 SCC 733; State of Punjab v. J.L. Gupta (2000) 3 SCC 736 : [2000] 1 SCR 903 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.