All Pensioners Form A Single Class, & Classification Based On Cut-Off Date For Revised Pension Benefits Is Arbitrary & Violative Of Article 14: Chhattisgarh HC

Background Facts

The pensioners of Government Colleges were members of the petitioner-society. They claimed the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission. The members of the petitioner-society who retired after 01.01.2006 were extended the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission, whereas the members who retired from service prior to 01.01.2006 were not granted the similar benefit. Earlier, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner-society, 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. Therefore, the petitioner-society made a representation, but it was rejected by respondent vide order dated 28.02.2018.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the petition for setting aside the order dated 28.02.2018 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. Further to direct the respondents to revise and consolidate the pension/family pension payable to the petitioners by complying with and giving effect to the Notification dated 18.09.2008, which was approved and adopted for implementation by the State Government. Further to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners (pre-2006 retirees) arrears of pension from 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008, along with interest.

It was contended by the petitioner 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. it was further submitted that such classification is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Dr. Surendra Narayan Gupta Versus Principal Secretary, State of M.P. & Ors.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out on 01.01.2000 and the liability was apportioned between the two states according to the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. It was further submitted 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. It was contended that the benefit of the 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.

It was further contended by the respondent that as Chhattisgarh is a small state therefore, huge financial liability would burden the State Finance. Therefore, it was argued that the classification based on the cut-off date was permissible. It was further argued 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.

Findings of the Court

The case of All Manipur Pensioners Association Versus State of Manipur & Ors. was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that there is no valid justification to create two classes, i.e. one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension. Such a classification had no relation with the object and purpose of the grant of the benefit of revised pension. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws.

Further the court provided a twin test for a valid classification i.e. it must necessarily satisfy that the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective, and the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a justifiable relation to the objective sought to be achieved.

It was held by the court that 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 the extension of benefits, especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when a similarly situated class is differentiated for the grant of any benefit.

It was further held by the court that the increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners, irrespective of whether they have retired pre-1996 or post-1996. And all the pensioners belong to one class. By such a classification/cut-off date, the equals are treated as unequals, and therefore, such a classification, which has no relation with the object and purpose of the revision of pension, is unreasonable, discriminatory, and arbitrary.

Further the case of Dr. Surendra Narayan Gupta Versus Principal Secretary, State of M.P. & Ors. was relied upon by the court wherein the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the employees who stood retired prior to 01.01.2006 should be treated similarly with the persons who stood retired after 01.01.2006, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition was disposed of. It was directed by the court to 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 the petitioner society within a period of 120 days. Further it was held by the court that 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 the Act, 2000.

Case Name : Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Mahavidyalayin Pensioners Sangh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No. : WPS No. 3602 of 2018

Counsel for the Petitioner : Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. ; Bhupendra Pandey, CGC