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

PETITIONER: VASANT GANGARAMSA CHANDAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)691

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench made on November 11, 1993 in Writ Petition No.3505/93. The appellant was working  as on April 1, 1957 as Peon-cum-Watchman in the Hyderabad  Agricultural   Committee.  Consequent   upon  the State’s reorganisation, the appellant had gone to and joined the service  of the  Krishi Utpadan  Bazar Samiti  at  Jalna district. He  retired from  service on  April 1,  1991 after completing about 35 years of service. His qualifying service was computed  w.e.f. October 1, 1969. He claimed the service from the  date of  his appointment.  It was  denied  on  the ground that  he started  contributing towards Provident Fund w.e.f. the  aforesaid date  and,  therefore  his  pensionary benefit required to be computed from that date. Clause 23 of Chapter VI in the scheme reads as under:      "Qualifying  service  of  a  Market      Committee employee  shall  commence      from the  date he  takes charge  of      the  post  to  which  he  is  first      appointed  or  from  the  date  the      employer started deducting the P.F.      contribution for the employee which      ever later.      A reading clearly indicates that the qualifying service is from the date he takes charge of the post to which he was first appointed  or  from  the  date  the  employer  started deduction of  provident fund from the employee, whichever is later. Pension is not a bounty of the State. It is earned by the employee  for  service  rendered  to  fall  back,  after retirement. It  is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily  denied. Therefore, we read down the rule. We hold that  reading the  rule which  is "later"  must be read down to  whichever is  "earlier". If  so read,  the rule  is

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

valid. Otherwise, it would be arbitrary offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the respondent contended  that the  appellant is not entitled to the D.A.;  on  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the appellant contended that pursuant to the order passed by the High Court to pay D.A. resolution had already been passed by the Committee and the D.A. has already been paid to him.      The pensionary  benefit will  be computed from April 1, 1957 within  two months  from the  date of  receipt of  this order and payment of arrears be paid accordingly.      The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.