Financial Burden On State A Valid Ground To Fix Cut­ Off Date For Purpose Of Payment Of Revision Of Pension: Supreme Court

Upholding Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, the Supreme Court observed that the financial burden on the State can be a valid ground to fix a cut­ off date for the purpose of payment of revision of pension.

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna set aside the judgment passed by Tripura High Court that had struck down the Rule 3(3).

The High Court had observed that the Rule is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and had consequently directed the state to pay the original writ petitioner the arrears of pension for the period from 1 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2008. The High Court had rejected the submission made by the State that due to the financial burden on the State, which the State was not in a position to bear the additional burden of revised pension, a policy decision has been taken to grant the benefit of revised pension notionally from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 and to grant the actual benefit of the revised pension from 01.01.2009 only.

Before the Apex Court, Advocate Shuvodeep Roy, who appeared for the State contended that the financial burden on the State can be a valid ground to fix a cut­off date for the purpose of payment of revision of pension and that the High Court ought not to have interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Taking note of these submissions and the impugned judgment, the bench observed:

"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, we are 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."

While allowing the appeal, the bench further observed:

While applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that in the instant case before us, 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.

Case details

State of Tripura vs Anjana Bhattacharjee | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 706 | CA 5114 OF 2022 | 24 August 2022 | Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Headnotes

Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 ; Rule 3(3) - 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 - The cut ­off date has been fixed as 01.01.2009 on a very valid ground i.e., financial constraint - High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule 3(3).

Click here to Read/Download Judgment