http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B. RAMA MURTHY

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (2) 530        JT 1995 (2)   539  1995 SCALE  (1)851

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2. The Government of India in O.M.No. 18(4)-EV/79 dated  May 25,  1979  introduced in paragraph 3(iii) that half  of  the dearness  pay  was  treated as  pay  to  compute  retirement benefits.   That came to be challenged by the respondent  in filing  O.A.  before the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal, Hyderabad.  The Tribunal in the impugned order dated  August 9,  1989  following  a judgment of  the  Bangalore  Tribunal declared  it to be ultra vires, offending Article 14 of  the Constitution.  Thus this appeal by special leave. 3.  The benefit of the O.M. is to facilitate calculation  of 10 months’ average pay for the purpose of pension.  Earlier, only  3/10th of the 10 months average pay was  computed  for pension.   Under  the impugned order in para 3(iii)  of  the O.M.  dated  May 25, 1979, the computation would  be  5/10th i.e. half of the dearness pay for the purpose of computation of pension. In other words, the O.M. is more beneficial  for the pensioner rather than earlier computation.  Whether  the notification  is justified and valid in law, was  considered by  a  Bench  of this Court in State of  Rajasthan  v.  Seva Nivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti, 1995(1) SCALE 40  wherein it  was held that the ratio in Nakara’s case has no  bearing in  this  matter  and the introduction of the  rule  is  not arbitrary or 540 capricious.   It  is  permissible  to  introduce   different retiral benefit schemes for Government servants as indicated in  the  decisions held by this Court in  Krishan  Kumar  v. Union of India, (1994)4 SCC 207, Indian Ex-Service League v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC II 82, and State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, AIR 1991 SC  1743. 4.   In view of the above ratio and practical effect of  the O.M.,  we  are  of the opinion that there  is  no  invidious discrimination  in the classification of the pensioners  who

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

retired at different dates and in computation of the pension for  different  periods.  The Government’s O.M.  makes  dis- cernible difference between government employees retired  at different  dates for entitlement to pension.  In  fact,  the O.M.  is more beneficial to the retired employees  than  was contended in the petition. S.   Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not right  in following  the earlier decision of the another  Tribunal  at Bangalore  accepting  the  ratio in  Nakara’s  case  without testing  the  facts  and circumstances of  this  case.   The appeal is accordingly allowed.  No costs. 541