Retired judge sought revised pension from 1997 per Shetty Commission. HC ruled based on Padmanabhan Commission effective from 2006, denying retrospective claim as scheme is prospective.
Petitioner's prayer for retrospective pension revision rejected; benefit available only from 01.01.2006.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1017-WP-5719-2021.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1016 WRIT PETITION NO.5719 OF 2021
Manohar S/o Ramrao Maney Age: 81 years, Occu: Retired Judicial Ofcer, R/o Symbosis Co-operative Housing Society, Plot No.6, House No.B-1, Sector N-8, Cidco, Aurangabad. … Petitioner
Versus
Mr. B. R. Survase, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. B. Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent No.1 Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 Mr. A. R. Kale, AGP for the Respondent No.4
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 12th October, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) :
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the
parties, taken up for fnal hearing.
1017-WP-5719-2021.odt
2
“B. Be issue any appropriate writ, direction, or order to consider the revised pension of the petitioner in the light of Justice Shetty Commission recommendation at 50% of the minimum pay of the post held of the time of retirement i.e. revised pay scale is Rs.51550-1230-589301380-63070 minimum of the pay scale Rs.51550/- and 50 percent of the amount is 25775/-. The amount coming after multiplication by 3.07 should not be less than Rs.25775/- and petitioner case is amount of multiplication is 26940/- which is not less than 25775/- from 25/3/1997 to 31/12/2005 with consequential benefts with interest.
1017-WP-5719-2021.odt
3
from 01.01.2006. As the pay scale has been revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and as such, the revised pension will also be payable to the petitioner with efect from 01.01.2006 and not from 25.03.1997.
“49. But we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required to be made because to that extent the scheme is prospective. All pensioners whenever they retired would be covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because the scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who
1017-WP-5719-2021.odt
4
retired subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired prior to the specifed date, their pension would be computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from the specifed date. No arrears would be payable. And that would take care of the grievance of retrospectivity. In our opinion, it would make a marginal diference in the case of past pensioners because the emoluments are not revised. The last revision of emoluments was as per the recommendation of the Third Pay commission (Raghubar Dayal Commission). If the emoluments remain the same, the computation of average emoluments under amended Rule 34 may raise the average emoluments, the period for averaging being reduced from last 36 months to last 10 months. The slab will provide slightly higher pension and if someone reaches the maximum the old lower ceiling will not deny him what is otherwise justly due on computation. The words "who were in service on 31st March, 1979 and retiring from service on or after the date" excluding the date for commencement of revision are words of limitation introducing the mischief and are vulnerable as denying equality and introducing an arbitrary fortuitous circumstance can be severed without impairing the formula. Therefore, there is absolutely no difculty in removing the arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme and it can be easily severed.
50. There is nothing immutable about the choosing of an event as an eligibility criteria subsequent to a specifed date. If the event is certain but its occurrence at a point of time is considered wholly irrelevant and arbitrarily selected having no rationale for selecting it and having an undesirable efect of dividing homogeneous class and of introducing the discrimination, the same can be easily severed and set aside. While examining the case under Art. 14, the approach is not: 'either take it or leave it', the approach is removal of arbitrariness and if that can be brought about by severing the mischievous portion the court ought to remove the discriminatory part retaining the benefcial portion. The pensioners do not challenge the liberalised pension scheme. They seek the beneft of it. Their grievance is of the denial to them of the same by arbitrary introduction of words of limitation and we fnd no difculty in severing and
1017-WP-5719-2021.odt
5
quashing the same. This approach can be legitimised on the ground that every Government servant retires. State grants upward revision of pension undoubtedly from a date. Event has occurred revision has been earned. Date is merely to avoid payment of arrears which may impose a heavy burden. If the date is wholly removed, revised pensions will have to be paid from the actual date of retirement of each pensioner. That is impermissible. The State cannot be burdened with arrears commencing from the date of retirement of each pensioner. But efective from the specifed date future pension of earlier retired Government servants can be computed and paid on the analogy of ftments in revised pay-scales becoming prospectively operative. That removes the nefarious unconstitutional part and retains the benefcial portion. It does not adversely afect future pensioners and their presence in the petitions becomes irrelevant. But before we do so, we must look into the reasons assigned for eligibility criteria, namely, 'in service on the specifed date and retiring after that date'. The only reason we could fnd in afdavit of Shri Mathur is the following statement in paragraph 5 :
‘The date of efect of the impugned orders has been selected on the basis of relevant and valid considerations.’”
1017-WP-5719-2021.odt
6
prayer clause ‘B’. No costs.
(R. N. LADDHA, J.)
(S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
Sameer
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner entitled to revision of pension with retrospective effect from 25/3/1997 based on Justice Shetty Commission recommendations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D.S. Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶27
D.S. Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India
All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary Vs. State of Manipur & Ors.Relied on¶38
All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary Vs. State of Manipur & Ors.
Manohar S/o Ramrao Maney
The Accountant General, (Accounts & Entitlement)-II Maharashtra
The Principle District Judge, Yavatmal
Registrar General, High Court of Bombay
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
R. N. LADDHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
