http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: INDIAN EX-SERVICES LEAGUE AND ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/01/1991

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) RAY, B.C. (J) KANIA, M.H. SHETTY, K.J. (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1182            1991 SCR  (1) 158  1991 SCC  (2) 104        JT 1991 (1)   243  1991 SCALE  (1)81  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1992 SC 767  (7)

ACT:      Service-Pension    Rules:    Pension-Petitioners    ex- servicemen-  Relief claimed in substance of ‘one  rank,  one pension’  on the basis of Nakara’s case- Claim  proceeds  on misreading of Nakara-Rejected.      Gratuity-Same Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to the pre- 1.4.1979  retires as to the post-1.4. 1979  retires  sought- Petitions dismissed-Central Civil Services (Pension)  Rules, 1972.      Dearness   allowance-Merger  of  D.A.   Backwards-Claim untenable.

HEADNOTE:      Petitioners who are ex-servicemen have moved these Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the constitution as a  sequel to the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. V. Union of India.  The relief claimed by them, in substance,  though not  said in so many words is to the effect that the  result of  the decision in Nakara is that all the retirees who held the same rank irrespective of their date of retirement  must get the same amount of pension and this should be the amount which  was  calculated and shown in the  appendices  to  the Memorandum (Ex. p-2) challenged in Nakara.      Similarly one of the prayers made in these Petitions is for grant of same Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to the  pre- 1.4.1979 retirees as to the Post 1.4.1979 retirees.      Another  claim made was for merger of  D.A.  backwards. Consequent to the decision in Nakara one G.O. No.F  1(4)82/D (Pension/Services) dated 22.11.1983 in respect of  personnel below   the  commissioned  rank  and  the  other  G.O.   No. 1(4)/82/1/D (Pension/Services) dated 3.12.1983 in respect of Commissioned  Officers were issued recomputing  the  revised pension  of  pre. 1.4.1979 retirees of Armed  Forces  as  on 1.4.1979 according to the liberalised pension scheme   dated 28.9.1979  as  modified by the decision in  Nakara.   It  is these   two  G.O’s  which  are  under  challenge  in   these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

petitions.                                                        159      Dismissing all the Writ Petitions, this Court,      HELD: In substance, even though learned counsel for the petitioners do not say so, the arguments amount to the claim of ‘one rank, one pension’ for all retirees of Armed  Forces irrespective of their date of retirement.  Unless this claim can be treated as flowing from the relief granted in Nakara, the  relief  claimed though differently  worded  cannot   be granted. [166H-167A]      The  claim  in  these petitions  is  untenable  and  it proceeds  on  a mis-reading of the  Naakara  decision.   The conclusion of the Constitution Bench in Nakara was that  the benefits  of  liberalisation  and extend  thereof  given  in accordance  with  the liberalised scheme have  to  be  given equally  to  all  retirees irrespective  of  their  date  of retirement and those benefits cannot be confined to only the persons  who retired on or after the specified date  because all retirees constitute one class irrespective of their date of  retirement for the purpose of grant of the  benefits  of liberalised pension. To give effect to this  conclusion  the only  relief granted was to strike down that portion of  the memorandum  by which the benefit of the liberalised  pension scheme was confined to only persons retiring on or after the specified  date with the result the benefit was extended  to all  retirees,  irrespective of their  date  of  retirement. Once  this position from the decision in Nakara is borne  in mind,  the  fallacy in the petitioner’s  contention  becomes obvious  and  their claim based only on Nakara  is  rendered untenable. [167D-G]      According  to  that decision, pension  of  all  earlier retirees  was to be recomputed as on the specified  date  in accordance  with  the liberalised  formula  of  computation. For this purpose there was no revision of the emoluments  of the  earlier  retirees  under the scheme.   It  was  clearly stated   that  ‘if  the  pensioners  form  a  class,   their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some  retired later’.  This according to us is the  decision in Nakara and no more.  The question for decision is whether the  petitioner’s claim flows from that decision  and  there is  nothing  in Nakara to support such claim.  There  is  no scopefor  enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover  all claims  by retirees or a demand for an identical  amount  of pension to every retiree from the same rank irrespective  of the   date  of  retirement,  even  though   the   reckonable emoluments  for the purpose of computation of their  pension be different.[168C-D,F, 169B]      Claim  for  gratuity can be made only on  the  date  of retirement on                                                        160 the basis of the salary drawn then and being already paid on that  footing the transaction was completed and closed.   It could  then be not reopened as a result of  the  enhancement made  at  a later date for  persons  retiring  subsequently. [172G-H]      From  1.1.1973 everyone is being paid D.A. in  addition to  the  pension.  The reckonable emoluments which  are  the basis  for  computation of pension are to be  taken  on  the basis  of emoluments payable at the time of retirement  and, therefore, there is no ground to include D.A. at a time when it was not paid. [173B]      D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 165; Krishna  Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,  [1990]  4 SCC  207;  Smt. Poonamal & Ors. v. Union of  India  &  Ors.,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

[1965]  3 SCC 345; State Government Pensioners’  Association and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 3 SCC 501  and Union  of India v. Bidhubhushan Malik & Ors., [1984]  3  SCC 95, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL  JURIDICTION: Writ Petition Nos.  13550-55  of 1984.                             WITH      Writ Petition Nos. 547-50 and 4524 of 1985.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)      G.  Viswanatha Iyer, K.L. Rathee, S.  Balakrishnan,  S. Prasad and S.K. Sinha for the Petitioners.      Ashok   H.Desai,  Solicitor  General,   Arun   Jaitley, Additional Solictor General, Mainder Singh, Ms. Anil Katyar, C.V.S. Rao and Rajan Narain for the Respondents.      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by      VERMA, J.  These writ petitions by ex-servicemen are  a sequal  to the decision in D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union  of India,[1983] 2 S.C.R. 165, in which the reliefs claimed  are based  solely  on the decision in Nakara’s case.   The  real point  for  decision,  therefore,  is  whether  the  reliefs claimed  in  these  writ  petitions  flow  as  a   necessary corollary  to the decision in Nakara.  This being  the  sole basis  for the reliefs claimed in these writ petitions,  the petitioners  can succeed only if this assumption by them  is correct.  Writ Petition Nos. 13550-55 of                                                        161 1984  are by ex-servicemen who retired from a  commissioned rank   while Writ Petition Nos. 547-50 of 1985 are by  those who retired from below the Commissioned rank.  Writ Petition No.  4524  of 1985 by an ex-serviceman has been  received  by post  and is substantially to the same  effect.   Petitioner No.  1 in the first two sets of writ petitions is a  Society representing  the ex-servicemen while the other  petitioners in these writ petitions are ex-servicemen of the three wings of the Armed Forces, namely, Army, Navy and Air Force.   In order to appreciate the contentions in these writ petitions, it  would  be  appropriate to first  refer  briefly  to  the decision in D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 165.      On  May  25,  1979, Government of  India,  Ministry  of Finance, issued Office Memorandum No. F-19(3)-EV-79  whereby the  formula for computation of pension was liberalised  but made  applicable only to civil servants who were in  service on March 31, 1979 and retired from service on or after  that date.   The  liberalised pension formula introduced  a  slab system, raised the ceiling and provided for a better average of emoluments for computation of pension and the liberalised scheme  was  made applicable to employees  governed  by  the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, retiring on or after the specified date.  The pension for the Armed  Forces personnel  is governed by the relevant regulations.  By  the Memorandum    of   the   Ministry   of    Defence    bearing No.B/40725/AG/PS4-C/1816/AD     (Pension)/Services     dated September   28,  1979,  the  liberalised   pension   formula introduced for the civil servants governed by the 1972 Rules was  extended to the Armed Forces personnel subject  to  the limitations set out in the Memorandum with a condition   that the  new rules of pension would be effective from  April  1, 1979  and  would be applicable to all service  officers  who become/became  non-effective on or after that  date.   These memoranda were Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 in Nakara.  Consequently,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

the   liberalised  pension  formula  was   made   applicable prospectively  only to those who retired on or  after  March 31, 1979 in case of civil servants covered 1972 Rules and in respect  of Armed Forces personnel who became  non-effective on  or after April 1, 1979.  The result was that  those  who retired prior to the specified date were not entitled to the benefits of liberalised pension formula in view of the  cut- off date of retirement specified in the Memoranda.  This led to the filing of the writ petition by D.S. Nakara and others on  behalf  of retired civil servants and personnel  of  the Armed  Forces  wherein it was  contended  that  differential treatment   to  the  pensioners  related  to  the  date   of retirement by the revised formula for computation of pension was  discriminatory  and  violative of  Article  14  of  the Constitution. The question for decision in                                                        162 Nakara  was  whether the date of retirement  is  a  relevant consideration  for  eligibility when a  liberalised  pension formula  for computation of pension is introduced  and  made effective  from a specified date resulting in denial of  the benefits  of the liberalised pension formula  to  pensioners who had retired prior to the specified date.      A  Constitution  Bench of this Court  in  Nakara  after elaborately discussing the concept of pension, summed up the position thus:          "Pension  to civil employees of the Government  and          the  defence  personnel as  administered  in  India          appeal  to be  a compensation for service  rendered          in the past.......            Summing-up  it can be said with  confidence  that          pension is not only compensation for loyal  service          rendered  in  the  past, but  pension  also  has  a          broader  significance, in that it is a  measure  of          socio-economic   justice  which  inheres   economic          security  in  the fall of life  when  physical  and          mental  prowess  is ebbing corresponding  to  aging          process and therefore, one is required to fall back          on  savings.  One such saving in kind is  when  you          gave  your   best  in the heyday of  life  to  your          employer, in days of invalidity, economic  security          by way of periodical payment is assured.  The  term          has  been judicially defined as a stated  allowance          or stipend made in consideration of past service or          a surrender of rights or emoluments to one  retired          from  service.   Thus  the  pension  payable  to  a          Government employee is earned by rendering long and          efficient service and therefore can be said to be a          deferred portion of the compensation or for service          rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most          practical   reison  d’etre  for  pension   is   the          inability  to provide for oneself due to  old  age.          One  may  live  and  avoid  unemployment  but   not          senility  and  penury if there is nothing  to  fall          back upon.             The discernible purpose thus underlying  pension          scheme or a statute introducing the pension  scheme          must inform interpretative process and  accordingly          it  should  receive a liberal construction  and  the          courts  may  not so interpret such  statute  as  to          render  them inane (see American Jurisprudence  2d.          881)". After  summing  up  the concept of  pension  as  above,  the Constitu-                                                        163 tion Bench set out the challenge of the petitioners in  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

case and indicated that the challenge was merely to that  of the scheme by which its benefits were confined to those  who retired  from  service after a certain date.   Even  though, undoubtedly the benefit of the scheme is available only from the specified date irrespective of the date of retirement of the  concerned Government servants, it was pointed out  that all pensioners irrespective of the date of their  retirement constitute  one  class  for grant of  the  benefits  of  the liberalised  pension  scheme and no  further  classification within  them is permissible for this purpose with  reference to their date of retirement.  This was stated thus:          "If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us          that  the  pensioners for the  purpose  of  pension          benefits  form a class, would its  upward  revision          permit  a  homogeneous  class  to  be  divided   by          arbitrarily   fixing   an   eligibility    criteria          unrelated  to purpose of revision, and  would  such          classification   be   founded  on   some   rational          principle?  The classification has to be based,  as          is well settled, on some rational principle and the          rational  principle must have nexus to the  objects          sought to be achieved.  We have set out the objects          underlying  the payment of pension.  If  the  State          considered  it necessary to liberalise the  pension          scheme,  we find no rational principle behind  it          for  granting  these  benefits only  to  those  who          retired  subsequent  to  that  date  simultaneously          denying the same to those who retired prior to that          date.    If  the  liberalisation   was   considered          necessary for augmenting social security in old age          to  government  servants  then  those  who  retired          earlier cannot be worst off than those who  retired          later.  Therefore, this division which  classified          pensioners  into  two classes is not  based  on  any          rational  principle and  if the rational  principle          is  the one of dividing pensioners with a  view  to          giving  something more to persons otherwise  equally          placed,  it  would be  discriminatory.........  The          artificial   division  stares  into  face  and   is          unrelated  to any principle and whatever  principle,          if  there  be any, has absolutely no nexus  to  the          objects  sought to be achieved by liberalising  the          pension  scheme.  In fact this  arbitrary  division          has  not only no nexus to the  liberalised  pension          scheme  but  it  is  counter  productive  and  runs          counter to the whole gamut of pension scheme.   The          equal  treatment  guaranteed in Art.14  is  wholly          violated  inasmuch  as  the  pension  rules   being          statutory  in character, since the specified  date,          the rules accord differential and discri-                                                        164          minatory  treatment  to  equals in  the  matter  of          commutation  of pension.  A 48 hours difference  in          matter of retirement would have a traumatic effect.          Division  is thus both arbitrary and  unprincipled.          Therefore,  the classification does not  stand  the          test of Art. 14".                                         (emphasis supplied)      The judgement then proceeded to show that there was  no difficulty  or  inequity  in granting the  benefits  of  the liberalised  pension scheme to all retirees irrespective  of the date of their retirement by indicating as under:           ".........Assuming   the   Government   had    not          prescribed the specified date and thereby  provided          that those retiring pre and post the specified date

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

        would  all be governed by the  liberalised  pension          scheme,  undoubtedly, it would be both  prospective          and retroactive.  Only the pension will have to  be          recomputed  in the light of the formula enacted  in          the  liberalised pension scheme and effective  from          the  date of revised scheme comes into force.   And          beware  that it is not a new scheme, it is  only  a          revision  of  existing  scheme.  It is  not  a  new          retrial  benefit.  It is an upward revision  of  an          existing benefit.  If it was wholly new concept,  a          new retrial benefit, one could have appreciated  an          argument  that those who had already retired  could          not except it......"          "It was very seriously contended, remove the  event          correlated  to date and examine whether the  scheme          is workable.  We find no difficulty in implementing          the  scheme omitting the event happening after  the          specified  date retaining the more humane  formula          for computation of pension.  It would apply to  all          existing pensioners and future pensioners.  In  the          case of existing pensioners, the pension will  have          to  be recomputed by applying the rule  of  average          emoluments  as set out in Rule-34  and  introducing          the  slab system and the amount worked  out  within          the floor and the ceiling.             But we make is abundantly clear that arrears  are          not  required  to  be made (sic)  because  to  that          extent  the scheme is prospective.  All  pensioners          whenever  they  retire  would  be  covered  by  the          liberalised pension scheme, because the scheme is a          scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner                                                        165          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 retired subsequent to that          date.  In case of pensioners prior to the specified          date,  their pension would be computed  afresh  and          would  be  payable  infuture  commencing  from  the          specified date.  No arrears would be payable.   And          that   would  take  care  of  the   grievances   of          retrospectively.   In our opinion, it would make  a          marginal difference in the case of past  pensioners          because the emoluments are not revised......."                                         (emphasis supplied)      It  was  then pointed out that there is  absolutely  no difficulty in removing arbitrary and discriminatory  portion of  the  scheme  which is only  the  portion  confining  its applicability  to retirees subsequent to the specified  date since it could be easily severed.  It was held that it would be  just  and  proper  to  retain  the  specified  date  for implementation  of  the  liberalised  pension  scheme  while applying it equally to all pensioners irrespective of  their date  of  retirement  requiring the pension of  each  to  be recomputed as on the specified date and the future  payments to  be made in accordance with fresh computation  under  the liberalised  pension  scheme  as  enacted  in  the  impugned memoranda.  Thus all retirees irrespective of their date  of retirement  were treated as constituting one class  entitled to the benefits of the liberalised pension to be  recomputed as  on  the  specified date  according  to  the  liberalised formula requiring payment to be made prospectively from  the specified  date of the revised amount.  In other words,  the benefit of the liberalised pension formula was given equally

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

to all retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement and for this purpose, recomputation was required to be  made as  on  the specified date on the basis  of  the  emoluments payable  on the actual date of retirement of  each  retiree. The ultimate relief granted in Nakara is as under:          ".....Omitting  the  unconstitutional  part  it  is          delcared  that all pensioners governed by the  1972          Rules   and  Army  Pension  Regulations  shall   be          entitled   to   pension  as  computed   under   the          liberalised pension scheme from the specified date,          irrespective of the date of retirement.  Arrears of          pension  prior to the specified date as  per  fresh          computation is not admissible.  Let a writ to  that          effect be issued......."                                         (emphasis supplied)                                                        166      Consequent   upon  the  decision  in  Nakara   a   G.O. No.F.1(4)/82/D   (Pension/Services)  dated   22.11.1983   in respect   of  personnel  of  the  Armed  Forces  below   the Commissioned rank  and  G.O.No.1(4)/82/I/D(Pension/Services) dated  3.12.1983  in respect of Commissioned  Officers  have been  issued  by  the Government of  India  recomputing  the revised pension of pre-1.4.1979 retirees of the Armed Forces as on 1.4.1979 according to the liberalised pension  scheme. This   re-computation  has  been  made  according   to   the liberalised  pension scheme contained in the Memorandum  No. B/40725/AG/PS4-C/1816/AD      (Pension)/Services       dated 28.9.1979, as it stood partially modified by the decision in Nakara  to implement the decision in Nakara giving the  same benefit  of the liberalised pension scheme to  all  retirees irrespective  of their date of retirement.  It is these  two G.Os.  which are challenged in the present  writ  petitions. We  may  now  state the contentions  raised  in  these  writ petitions.      The  Armed Forces personnel retiring from  Commissioned ranks  were represented by Shri G.Viswanatha  Iyer,  while the  Armed  Forces personnel retiring from ranks  below  the Commissioned rank were represented by Shri K.L. Rathee.  The arguments  of  both  of them  are  substantially  the  same. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the result of the decision in Nakara is that all retirees who held  the same rank irrespective of their date of retirement must  get the  same  amount of pension and this should be  the  amount which  was  calculated and shown in the  appendices  to  the Memorandum (Ex. P-2) challenged in Nakara.  Admittedly,  the appendices  to that Memorandum specified the computation  of pension for different ranks of retirees on or after 1.4.1979 made on the basis of the reckonable emoluments on  1.4.1979. It  is  also admitted that the  reckonable   emoluments  for corresponding  ranks on earlier dates were not the  same  to provide   identical  basis  for  recomputation  of   pension according to the liberalised pension scheme of pre. 1.4.1979 retirees.  In substance, even though learned counsel for the petitioners do not say so, the arguments amount to the claim of  ‘one  rank, one pension’ for all retirees of  the  Armed Forces irrespective of their date of retirement.  It is also admitted that prior to this liberalised pension scheme,  the pension  amount of the earlier retirees from the  same  rank was not the same irrespective of their date of retirement or in other words, the principle of ‘one rank, one pension’ did not apply earlier.  It was stated at the Bar that the demand of  ‘one rank, one pension’ is pending consideration of  the Government of India as a separate issue.  It is,  therefore, clear  that  unless the petitioner’s claim in  substance  of ‘one  rank, one pension’ can be treated as flowing from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

relief granted in                                                        167 Nakara,  the  reliefs  claimed  in  these  petitions  though differently worded cannot be granted.  It is for this reason that  learned counsel avoided describing the reliefs  claimed herein as claim of ‘one rank, one pension’, even though they were  unable to tell us how, if at all, the reliefs  claimed in these petitions can be construed differently.      The  learned Solicitor General in reply contended  that the  impugned  G.Os.  in the present  case  were  issued  in implementation  of the decision in Nakara and the  challenge to them on the basis of Nakara decision, is untenable.   The learned  Solicitor General contended that  the  petitioner’s claim  herein arises out of a mis-reading of Nakara and  the general observations therein have to be read in the  context in  which  they were made.  The  Learned  Solicitor  General submitted in all fairness that in spite of this stand of the Government  of  India if any error in recomputation  of  the revised  pension  is pointed out, the  Government  of  India would promptly correct the error, if any, since that is only a matter of calculation.      Having heard both sides at length and after giving  our anxious  consideration  to the matter, we have  reached  the conclusion that the claim of the petitioners in the  present writ petitions is untenable and it proceeds on a  mis-reading of the Nakara decision.      The conclusion of the Constitution Bench in Nakara  was the  benefits of the liberalisation and the  extent  thereof given in accordance with the liberalised pension scheme have to  be given equally to all retirees irrespective  of  their date  of retirement and those benefits can not  be  confined only  to the persons who retired on or after  the  specified date  because  for the purpose of grant of the  benefits  of liberalisation in pension, all retirees constitute one class irrespective of their date of retirement.  In order to  give effect  to  this conclusion the only relief granted  was  to strike  down  that portion of the memoranda   by  which  the benefit of the liberalised pension scheme was confined  only to persons retiring on or after the specified date with  the result  that  the  benefit was  extended  to  all  retirees, irrespective  of  their  date  of  retirement.   Once   this position  emerging from the decision  in Nakara is borne  in mind,  the fallacy in the petitioner’s contention  in  these writ petitions becomes obvious and their claim based only on Nakara is untenable.      The liberalised pension scheme in the context of  which the decision was rendered in Nakara provided for computation of  pension according to a more liberal formula under  which "average emolu-                                                        168 ments"  were  determined  with reference  to  the  last  ten month’s salary instead of 36 months’ salary provided earlier yielding  a higher average, coupled with a slab  system  and raising the ceiling limit for pension. This Court held  that where the made of computation of pension is liberalised from a  specified date, its benefit must be given not  merely  to retirees  subsequent  to  that  date  but  also  to  earlier existing  retirees irrespective of their date of  retirement even  though the earlier retirees would not be  entitled  to any arrears prior to the specified date on the basis of  the revised  computation  made  according  to  the   liberalised formula.   For  the purpose of such a  scheme  all  existing retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement,  were held  to constitute one class, any further  division  within that class being impermissible.  According to that decision,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

the pension of all earlier retirees was to be recomputed  as on  the  specified date in accordance with  the  liberalised formula   of  computation  on  the  basis  of  the   average emoluments   of  each  retiree  payable  on  his   date   of retirement.   For this purpose there was no revision of  the emoluments of the earlier retirees under the scheme. It was clearly, stated that  ‘if the pensioners form a class. their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some  retired later’.  This according to us is the  decision in Nakara and no more.      Ordinarily,  it  would suffice to mention the  gist  of Nakara  decision  without  extensively  quoting   therefrom. However, we have done so for the reason that the impassioned plea  of Shri G.Viswanatha Iyer, learned  counsel  appearing for  the  Army Officers which was reiterated with  an  added emotive  appeal  by  Shri K.L,  Rathee,  appearing  for  the remaining ranks of Armed Forces seems to suggest that denial of  petitioner’s  claim amounts to  mis-reading  the  Nakara decision   and  refusad  of  the  logical   relief   flowing therefor.  It is only to dispel this incorrect impression we have quoted from Nakara at some length.  We have merely   to decide  whether  the  petitioner’s  claim  flows  from   the decision  in  Nakara and we are unable to find  anything  in Nakara to support such claim.      Nakara  decision  came  up  for  consideration   before another  Constitution Bench recently in Krishena  Kumar  and Others  v. Union of India and Others, [1990] 4  S.C.C.  207. The petitioners in that case were retired Railway  employees who  were covered by or opted for the  Railway  Contributory Provident  Fund Scheme.  It was held that P.F. retirees  and pension  retirees  constitute different classes and  it  was never held in Nakara that pension retirees and P.F, retirees formed  a  homogeneous class, even though  pension  retirees alone did constitute                                                        169 a homogeneous class within which any further  classification for  the  purpose  of  a  liberalised  pension  scheme   was impermissible.   It was pointed out that in Nakara, it  was never  required to be decided that all the retirees for  all purposes formed one class and no further classification  was permissible.   We have referred to this decision  merely  to indicate that another Constitution Bench of this Court  also has  read Nakara decision as one of limited application  and there is no scope  for enlarging the ambit of that  decision to cover all claims made by the pension retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree from the same  rank  irrespective  of the date  of  retirement,  even though   the  reckonable  emoluments  for  the  purpose   of computation of their pension be different.      At  attempt  was  made  by  learned  counsel  for   the petitioners  to  confine  this meaning  of  Nakara  only  to civilian  retirees.  It was contended that the  position  in the case of ex-servicemen  was different.  It was urged that for  the  ex-servicemen, the relevant Memorandum  (Ex.  p-2) dated  28.9.1979  which  contained  appendices  showing  the calculation  of  pension  for each rank had  to  be  equally applied  to  pre-1.4.1979 retirees since  the  only  portion struck down in the Memorandum was the offending cut-off date confining  the  grant  of the benefits  of  the  liberalised pension  scheme to those retiring after the specified  date. In  our  opinion,  no such distinction in the  case  of  ex- servicemen  can be made.  A perusal of the Memorandum  dated 28.9.1979   shows   that  it  was   consequent   action   to liberalisation  of  the pension formula for  civil  servants

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

extending  the  same  benefit to the Armed  Forces  with  no further  addition.   Appendices ‘A’ , ‘B’ and  ‘C’  to  this Memorandum  merely indicated the computation of the  pension made  for  each rank according to  the  revised  liberalised pension formula, the rates being calculated on the basis  of emoluments  payable  for those ranks on 1.4.1979  since  the Memorandum  was  confined  in application  only  to  service officers retiring on or after 1.4.1979.  In that Memorandum, therefore,  no  occasion arose for   computaton  of  revised pension  for pre-1.4.1979 retirees.  It is only as a  result of  the  Nakara decision holding that the  same  liberalised pension  formula  for computation would apply  to  all  pre- 1.4.1979  retirees also that the question of  re-computation of  the  pension  of  the earlier  reitrees  also  that  the question of re-computation of the pension of the pension  of the earlier retiree on the basis of the liberalised  formula arose  and  this is what has been done in  the  G.Os.  dated 22.11.1983 and 3.12.1983 challenged in these writ petitions. It  is  a mis-reading of the Memorandum dated  28.9.1979  to contend  that  the  appendices  to  that  Memorandum  became automatically applicable  even to pre-1.4.1979 retirees as a result  of  the Nakara decision.  That  amounts  to  reading something  in that decision which would be contrary  to  its ratio.                                                        170      The  Memorandum  dated 28.9.1979 which  was  Ex.P.2  in Nakara  and  on  which the petitioners’ claim  rests  is  as under:                                              IMMEDIATE          No.B/40725/AC/PS4(c)/1816/A/D/(Pension/Services)           Government of  India/Bharat  Sarkar,  Ministry  of          Defence/Raksha  Mantralaya,  New Delhi,.  the  28th          September, 1979.          To            The Chief of the Army Staff.            The Chief of the Naval Staff.            The Chief of the Air Staff.          Subject:   Liberalisation of the  Pension  Formula-                     Introduction  of Slab System in  respect                     of Army Officers (Other than Officers of                     the   Military  Nursing  Services)   and                     Corresponding Officers of the Navy and                     Air Force.           Sir.                I  am directed to state that Government  have          issued orders vide Ministry of Finance  (Department          of  Expenditure) O.M. No.F. 19(3)-EV/79, dated  the          25th  May,  1979 for detrermining  pension  of  the          Central  Government Civil servants on  slab  system          given below:                               Amount of monthly pension          (a) Upto first Rs.1000  50% of average emoluments             of average emoluments            reckonable for pension          (b) Next Rs.500 of      45% of average              average emoluments emoluments          (c) Balance of average  40% of average              emoluments          emoluments          Consequent upon the introduction of the slab system          for determining pension as above, the President  is          pleased to                                                        171          modify,  the  rates  of pension  of  Army  Officers          (excluding  the  Officers of the  Military  Nursing          Services)  and corresponding officers of  the  Navy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

        and   Air   Force  as  given  in  A   13/9/76   and          corresponding Naval and Air Force Instructions, and          Ministry   of   Defence  letter   No.   F.1(8)/70/D          (Pension/Services),  dated the 17th July,  1975  in          case  of  rate of pension in respect of  Chiefs  of          Staff,  on the same basis and the revised rates  of          pension  are as shown in Appendices ‘A’,  ‘B’  and          ‘C’ respectively, attached to this letter.          2. Then new rates of pension are effective from 1st          April,  1979 and will be applicable to all  service          officers  who  became/become  non-effective  on  or          after that date.          3.  The Pension Regulations for the three  Services          will be amended in due course.           4.  This  issues  with  the  concurrence  of   the          Ministry  of Finance (Defence) vide their u.o.  No.          2682/Pen of 1979.                                          Yours faithfully,                                                   Sd/-                                         (Shiv Raj Nafir)                 Under Secretary to the Govt. of India".                                         (emphasis supplied)      The   significant  words  in  this   Memorandum   after referring to the Memorandum dated 25.5.1979 for determining pension  of the civil servants according to the  liberalised pension  formula  on  the  slab  system  based  on  ‘average emoluments reckonable for pension’ are as under:          "Consequent  upon  the  introduction  of  the  slab          system  for  determining  pension  as  above,   the          President is pleased to modify the rates of pension          of Army Officers......and corresponding officers of          the Navy and Air Force....on the same basis.      The above words leave no doubt that by this  Memorandum the personnel of Armed Forces were extended the same benefit of  liberalised  pension formula for  computation  of  their pension  as  was given to the civil servants  ‘on  the  same basis’.   The  words which follow  thereafter  indicate  the appendices ‘A’, ‘B’and ‘C’ attached to the                                                        172 Memorandum specified the revised rates of pension calculated on  the  liberalised  basis for each rank on  the  basis  of reckonable  emoluments  payable  as on  1.4.1979  since  the memorandum   when  issued  confined  the  benefits  of   the liberalised scheme only to post 1.4.1979 retirees.  There is no  scope  for  reading these appendices  torn  out  of  the context of the Memorandum in its original from to which they were appended.  So read, it is obvious that the calculations given  in the appendices ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ to this  Memorandum contain the computation according to the liberalised formula for  each  rank of the three wings of the Armed  Forces  for post  1.4.1979 retirees only.  It follows that a  result  of the  Nakara  decision when the benefit  of  the  liberalised pension  scheme  was made applicable even to  pre-  1.4.1979 retirees  of the Armed Forces, computation according to  the liberalised formula for pre 1.4.1979 retirees had to be made in the same manner as it was done for post 1.4.1979 retirees and shown in appendices ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ to this  memorandum. This  was  done by the impugned G.Os. dated  22.11.1983  and 3.12.1983.      The  petitioners’ claim that all pre-1.4.1979  retirees of  the  Armed  Forces are entitled to the  same  amount  of pension as shown in appendices ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ for each rank is  clearly  untenable  and does not flow  from  the  nakara decision.      We may now deal with the remaining contentions.  It Writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

Petition No. 4524 of 1985, one of the reliefs claimed is for family  pension.   It has been pointed out  by  the  learned Solicitor General that provision has been made for the  same by  the  Government  of  India  (Ministry  of  Defence)   in memorandum No. F. 6(2)/85/1689/B/D (Pension/Services)  dated 8.8.1985 which has been issued in compliance of this Court’s decision  in Smt. Poonamal and Others v. Union of India  and Others,  [1985]  3 S.C.C. 345).  That  grievance  no  longer survives.  Other reliefs claimed in this writ petition by an ex-serviceman are the same as in other writ petitions.      One of the prayers made in these writ petitions is  for grant  of  same Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity  to  the  pre- 1.4.1979  retirees  as  to the  post-1.4.1979  retirees.   A similar claim was rejected by this Court in State Government Pensioners’  Association  and  Others  v.  State  of  Andhra Pradesh, [1986]3 S.C.C. 501 on the ground that the claim for gratuity  can be made only on the date of retirement on  the basis  of  the salary drawn on the date  of  retirement  and being  already  paid  on that footing  the  transaction  was completed  and closed.  It could then not be reopened  as  a result  of the enhancement made at a later date for  persons retiring  subsequently.   This  concept  of  gratuity  being different                                                        173 form  pension has also been reiterated by  the  Constitution bench  in  krishena Kumar’s case.  With respect, we  are  in full   agreement  with  this  view.   This  claim   of   the petitioners also, therefore, fails.      Another claim made is for merger of D.A. backwards also. From 1.1.1973 everyone is being paid D.A. in addition to the pension.   The reckonable emoluments which are the basis  for computation  of  pension  are to be taken on  the  basis  of emoluments payable at the time of retirement and, therefore, there is no ground to include D.A. at a time when it was not paid.  This claim also in untenable.      Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to certain decisions  which  it is unnecessary to  consider  at  length since they where cited only for reading the Nakara  decision in  the  manner suggested by petitioners.  The  decision  of this Court Union of India v. Bidhubhushan Malik and  Others, [1984]3  S.C.C.  95  by which  special  leave  petition  was dismissed  against the decision of the Allahabad High  Court reported  in  AIR  1983  Allahabad 209  is  also  of  little assistance in the present case.  This Court while dismissing the special leave petition upheld the Allahabad High Court’s view that the liberalised pension became operative under the High  Court Judges (Conditions of Service)  (Amendment)  Act, 1976,  from 1.10.1974 and applied to all retired High  Court Judges  irrespective  of the date of  their  retirement  and there  is no question of payment of arrears of  pension  for the period preceding 1.10.1974.  We are unable to appreciate the relevance of this case to support the petitioners’ claim in these writ petitions.      The  learned  Solicitor  General has  stated  that  the impugned  G.Os.  dated  22.11.1983 (Annexure  I)  and  dated 3.12.1983  (Annexure II) issued by the Government  of  India (Ministry  of Defence) in the present case are based on  re- computation  of  pension of pre 1.4.1976 retirees  of  Armed Forces   according   to  the  liberalised   pension   scheme consequent upon the decision in Nakara.  He also added  that if any error in computation is pointed out in respect of any particular  person or rank or otherwise, the same  would  be promptly  corrected.   On the above view taken  by  us,  the prayer  made  in  these writ petitions  for  quashing  these orders  has  to  be  rejected.  For  the  same  reason,  its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

corollary that the same amount of pension be paid to all pre 1.4.1979  retirees  of  Armed Forces as  to  post-  1.4.1979 retirees must also be rejected.      Consequently,   these  writ  petitions  fail  and   are dismissed.  No costs R.N.J.                                   Petitions dismissed                                                        174