Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1467 (RAJ)

Ramji Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2002-08-26

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - Meaningful question that requires consideration in all the four writ petitions is whether the cut off date mentioned in para 5 of the Notification dated March 21, 1998 was only an ipse dixit of the State Government and was introduced in an arbitrary and capricious manner taking out of that without any basis whatsoever? 2. Vide Notification dated March 21, 1988, the State Government amended the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996. Clause 5 of the Notification reads as under: "5. The State Government has revised the Pay Scales of Government servants with effect from 1.9.1996 with the conditions that no arrears would accrue for the period from 1.9.1996 to 31.12.1996. Accordingly on the same lines in respect of Government servants retired/died while in service during the period 1.9.1996 to 31.12.1996, no arrears of pension shall accrue upto 31.12.1996; pension/family pension calculated on pre-revised pay shall only be payable upto 31.12.1996 and the pension/family pension on revised notional pay and as per the above mentioned amendments shall be payable with effect from 1.1.1997. The commutation and Gratuity to these Government servants shall not be admissible on the revised notional pay and the amount of commutation/Gratuity already paid on the pre-revised pay shall be treated as final." The petitioners averred that the State Government although has extended the benefits of the amendments made in the Pension Rules granting the revised pay fixations for pensioners who have retired after September 1, 1996, has further arbitrarily laid down a condition that no arrears of pension shall accrue for the period from September 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 on revised pay scales. Government servants who have retired in between September 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 have been further classified illegally and the amount of commutation and gratuity had also not been made admissible for these Government servants. 3. The petitioners averred that they have suffered great financial loss and have been virtually deprived for the benefits of the revised pay scale Rules and the original Notification dated March 21, 1998 by which pension of the pensioners was made effective from September 1, 1996. 3. The petitioners averred that they have suffered great financial loss and have been virtually deprived for the benefits of the revised pay scale Rules and the original Notification dated March 21, 1998 by which pension of the pensioners was made effective from September 1, 1996. The contention of the petitioners is that on account of revision in pay scales, the petitioners are entitled to receive pay fixations in the new pay scales w.e.f. and if the pension is calculated at the revised new pay scales, they would get more than the present pension which they have been sanctioned as on date. Similarly if the commutation of pension admissible to an employee would have been calculated on the revised pension, they would get more than the amount which they have received at the time of retirement in view of the revised pay scales. The petitioners, averred that they have suffered immensely as their gratuity amount has also been calculated on the basis of the pay which they were drawing under the Rules of 1989. The petitioners averred that the gratuity amount has to be calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn under the revised pay scales, 1998. Further the petitioners submitted that they are being treated in a step motherly manner by the Government, the Rules of 1998 which have been made effective from September 1, 1996 by the State Government making the pay fixations w.e.f. September 1, 1996 have been applied differently for Government servants who have retired after January 1, 1997. Those employees who have retired after January 1, 1997 shall be entitled to receive gratuity and commutation of pension under the revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998. The retrospective date of January 1, 1997 for granting of gratuity and commutation of pension has been arbitrarily fixed creating an artificial classification amongst the retired employees of the Government of Rajasthan in between the date of commencement of the Rules of 1998 i.e. September 1, 1996 and the date of actual issuance of the Notification dated March 21, 1998. The petitioners averred that they have also seriously suffered on account of the denial of the arrears of pension accruable to them merely because they retired between September I, 1996 to December 31, 1996. No plausible explanation has been given while making such an amendment in the Rules. 4. The petitioners averred that they have also seriously suffered on account of the denial of the arrears of pension accruable to them merely because they retired between September I, 1996 to December 31, 1996. No plausible explanation has been given while making such an amendment in the Rules. 4. The respondents submitted return and averred that they have taken a policy decision in regard to the payment of no arrears of pension to the person who have retired during the period from September 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996. It was also averred that no such arrears have been given to the employees of the State Government who are even in service. The State Government has to take such policy decisions in view of its financial resources which is absolutely in the domain of the State Government. The petitioners who have been retired during the period September 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 in view of the policy decision taken by the State Government no arrears of pension have been given to all such employees. The respondents averred that the matter is related to cut off date as fixed by the State Government and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Hon'ble Court, the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondents denied that the petitioners suffered great financial loss and have been virtually deprived of the benefits of the revised pay scale Rules. The respondents also denied that the petitioners have suffered immensely as their gratuity amounts have been calculated on the basis of pay which they were drawing under similar Rules of 1989. The amount of gratuity is payable on the last pay drawn by the employee and since the policy decision is taken by the State Government for granting arrears of pay w.e.f. January 1, 1997, the petitioners can have no grievance to interfere with the decision of the State Government. The respondents further averred that in view of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1638/1998 Som Dutt Purohit and others v. State at Jodhpur decided on May 20, 1998 wherein it has been held that the State Government is competent to take decision and decide cut off date keeping in view the financial resources which is absolutely in the domain of the State Government, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that the petitioners are entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Legislative and executive action may be sustained if it satisfies the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle co-related to the object sought to be achieved. Clause 5 of the Notification dated March 21, 1998 is liable to be struck down as the Government fails to show that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. Reliance is placed on Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others, [( 1971(2) SCC 330 ] : [197 1 (1) SLR 175 (SC)] , D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, (1983)1 SCC 305 : [1983(2) SLR 246 (SC)] , V. Kasturi v. Managing Director State Bank of India Bombay and another, AIR 1999 SC 81 ) : [1998(5) SLR 629 (SC)] , R.L. Marwaha v. Union of India and others, (1997)4 SCC 31 : [1987(4) SLR 728 (SC)] , State of Punjab v. Justice S.S. Dewan and others, (1997)4 SCC 569 : [1997(2) SLR 647 (SC)] , and K. Ravindranath Pai and another v. State of Karnataka and another, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 246: [1996(2) SLR 109 (SC)] . 6. Per contra Mr. S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General canvassed that the Government took a policy decision in regard to the payment of no arrears of pension to the persons who have retired during the period September 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996. No such arrears have been given to the employees of the State Government who are even in service. The policy decision was taken by the Government in view of its financial resources which is absolutely in the domain of the State Government. It is further contended that paras 13,15(l)(a) (b) and 15(2) of the Notification dated March 21, 1998 were called in question in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1638/1998. While dismissing the Writ Petition on May 20, 1998 the Single Bench of this Court observed that the State Government was competent to decide a cut off date keeping in view the financial resources, which is absolutely in the domain of the State Government. While dismissing the Writ Petition on May 20, 1998 the Single Bench of this Court observed that the State Government was competent to decide a cut off date keeping in view the financial resources, which is absolutely in the domain of the State Government. The Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 726/1998 decided on October 11, 1999 while dismissing the appeal indicated that the State Government could frame the policy in view of the financial stringency. 7. The learned Advocate General placed reliance on State of U.P. v. U.P. University Colleges Pensioners Association, (1994)2 SCC 729 : [1994(2) SLR 4 (SC)] , State of Punjab v. Boota Singh, (2003)3 SCC 733 , State of Punjab and another v. J.L. Gupta and others, (2000)3 SCC 736 : [ 2000(4) SLR 231 (SC)] , Union of India and another v. R. Sarangapani and others (2000)4 SCC 335 : [ 2000(5) SLR 391 (SC)] and State of Rajasthan v. Sevanivatra Karamchari l- iitkari Samiti, (1995)2 SCC 117 : [ 1995(2) SLR 121 (SC)] . 8. 1 have pondered over the rival submissions. 9. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti (Supra) propounded in para 25 thus: "It is permissible to introduce different retiral benefit schemes for Government servants on the basis of the date of retirement as indicated in the decisions of this Court in Krishna Kumar case, (1990) 4 SCC 207 , Indian Ex-Service League case, (1991) 2 SCC 104 and Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj case (1991 Supp. (2) SCC 14.1. Rule 268 H cannot, therefore, be held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as indicated in the impugned decision of the Rajasthan High Court." 10. In yet another case State of U.P. v. U.P. University College Pensioners Association, [ (1994)2 SCC 729 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "This part as to how much of liberalization should have been conceded is a matter of policy and if the Government decided to go as far as visualised by the G.O. of April 28, 1980, it is not open to any Court to interfere with the same, as the policy contained in the G.O. cannot be said to be either unreasonable, or against public interest, which are the only two grounds available to a Court to interfere with a policy matter while reviewing the same judicially." 11. In State of Punjab and others v. Boota Singh and another (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that "granting of additional benefits has financial implications also, therefore specifying the date for the conferment of such additional benefits cannot be considered as arbitrary." 12. In Union of India and another v. R. Sarangapani and others (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that "it was open to the Government to decide, having regard to the budgetary provision, as to what extent it could go and whether it could fix a cut off date which was coterminous with the commencement of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, namely, 1.1.1986. On the peculiar facts of the instant case, the said date was perfectly valid because the only consideration was the financial burden of the State and not any principle of equality." 13. It is thus evident that the policy formulation and articulation, or change therein, is a prerogative of the State Government. The Court can only interfere with the policy decision when it is either unreasonable, or against public interest. The Court should only ensure that the policy pearls are gathered and collected. It may not evaluate their value, or examine the basis of their valuation. It should accept the decisional formulations and further ensure that transparency and accountability are maintained. If the Government is satisfied in its wisdom or necessity, it should not be doubted. It is in the domain of the State Government to introduce different retiral benefit schemes for Government servants on the basis of the date of retirement. If granting of additional benefits has financial implications, specifying the date for the conferment of such additional benefits cannot be considered as arbitrary. It is open to the Government to decide, having regard to the budgetary provision, as to what extent it could go and whether it could fix a cut off date. 14. After having closely scrutinised Clause 5 of the Notification dated March 21, 1998 and other material on the record, I find that the condition, that no arrears of pension shall accrue for the period from September 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996 was perfectly valid because the only consideration in laying down the said condition was the financial burden of the State and not any principle of equality. It cannot therefore, be held that the cut off date mentioned in para 5 of the Notification dated March 21, 1998 was an ipse dixit of the State Government and it was introduced in an arbitrary and capricious manner taking out of that without any basis whatsoever. 15. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions, they accordingly stand dismissed without any order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******