Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
B. RAMA MURTHY
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (2) 530 JT 1995 (2) 539
1995 SCALE (1)851
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Government of India in O.M.No. 18(4)-EV/79 dated May
25, 1979 introduced in paragraph 3(iii) that half of the
dearness pay was treated as pay to compute retirement
benefits. That came to be challenged by the respondent in
filing O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated August
9, 1989 following a judgment of the Bangalore Tribunal
declared it to be ultra vires, offending Article 14 of the
Constitution. Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. The benefit of the O.M. is to facilitate calculation of
10 months’ average pay for the purpose of pension. Earlier,
only 3/10th of the 10 months average pay was computed for
pension. Under the impugned order in para 3(iii) of the
O.M. dated May 25, 1979, the computation would be 5/10th
i.e. half of the dearness pay for the purpose of computation
of pension. In other words, the O.M. is more beneficial for
the pensioner rather than earlier computation. Whether the
notification is justified and valid in law, was considered
by a Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Seva
Nivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti, 1995(1) SCALE 40 wherein
it was held that the ratio in Nakara’s case has no bearing
in this matter and the introduction of the rule is not
arbitrary or
540
capricious. It is permissible to introduce different
retiral benefit schemes for Government servants as indicated
in the decisions held by this Court in Krishan Kumar v.
Union of India, (1994)4 SCC 207, Indian Ex-Service League v.
Union of India, AIR 1991 SC II 82, and State of Rajasthan v.
Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, AIR 1991 SC 1743.
4. In view of the above ratio and practical effect of the
O.M., we are of the opinion that there is no invidious
discrimination in the classification of the pensioners who
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
retired at different dates and in computation of the pension
for different periods. The Government’s O.M. makes dis-
cernible difference between government employees retired at
different dates for entitlement to pension. In fact, the
O.M. is more beneficial to the retired employees than was
contended in the petition.
S. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not right in
following the earlier decision of the another Tribunal at
Bangalore accepting the ratio in Nakara’s case without
testing the facts and circumstances of this case. The
appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
541