http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: CHAUDHARY KESAVA RAO AND ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/08/1990

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1990 AIR 2043            1990 SCR  Supl. (1)   5  1990 SCC  (4) 165        JT 1990 (3)   652  1990 SCALE  (2)425

ACT:     Civil  Services: Andhra Pradesh Revised  Pension  Rules, 1980: Parts I and II--Division of government servants--Based on dates of retirement--Whether discriminatory.

HEADNOTE:     The  Andhra  Pradesh State Government  appointed  a  Pay Revision Commissioner in 1977, for revision of pay-scales in respect of its employees. The Commissioner was also directed to review the then existing retirement benefits and to  make suitable  recommendations regarding extension of  retirement benefits.  He submitted his report and recommended that  the revised scales be made effective from 1.4.78. He also recom- mended  that the retirement age should be increased from  55 years to 58 years.     Accepting  the report, the State Government  implemented the  recommendations  regarding  pay-scales  effective  from 1.4.78. The recommendation regarding increase in  retirement age was implemented with effect from 29.10.1979.     The  State  Government promulgated the  Revised  Pension Rules,  1980,  which made a distinction  between  Government servants  who  were  in service as  on  29th  October,  1979 (Part-I)  and those Government servants who retired/died  in between 1.4.78 and 28.10.79. (Part-II).     By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenged  the Revised  Pension  Rules, 1980 on the ground  that  the  said Rules  created two different categories of  pensioners  with different  rates of pension which was  completely  arbitrary and  in violation of this Court’s decision in D.S. Nakara  & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165.     The Respondent State contended that the increase In  the age  of superannuation could not be  implemented  retrospec- tively as it would have led to a lot of difficulties, but to compensate those who retired after April 1, 1978 and  before October 29, 1979 the Government gave them certain  benefits. It was further contended that since the date of  superannua- tion was enhanced to 58 years on 29.10.1979 it was neces- 6 sary  to  draw a line between those who retired  earlier  to that  date and those who retired subsequent  to  29.10.1979, which  was  not  arbitrary and the rules  guarantee  50%  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

pension  to  both  categories irrespective of  the  date  of retirement. Dismissing the writ petitions,     HELD:  1.  The claim of the petitioners is  based  on  a complete misconception of the Rules. A perusal of the  Rules clearly  goes to show that Part-I of the Rules was no  doubt made applicable to all Government servants who would  retire on or after 29.10.1979 while Part-II was made applicable  to such Government servants who were holding pensionable  posts on 31st March, 1978 and who retired between 1st April,  1978 and 28th October, 1979 and this distinction was necessary in view of the fact that the age of superannuation for  retire- ment  was  increased from 55 years to 58 years  w.e.f.  29th October, 1979. [9G-H; 10A]     2. All the benefits have been granted to the  pensioners like  the petitioners who had retired between  1.4.1978  and 29.10.1979 in the amount of pension, retirement gratuity and family pension as granted to the Government servants falling under  Part-I So far as the amount of pension is  concerned, the  formula of completed six monthly periods of  qualifying service was worked out as 30/60 of average emoluments  which was equal to 50% of the pay. On account of the fact that the Government  servants falling in Part-I are retiring  at  the superannuation age of 58 years the above formula was  calcu- lated as 33/66 which was also 50% of the average emoluments. Similarly  in  the case of retirement  gratuity  and  family pension no distinction has been made in the case of the  two categories  of  pensioners. This clearly goes to  show  that neither there is any discrimination nor any disadvantage  to the  pensioners falling in the category of  petitioners  and the formula working out the amount of pension is based on  a rational principle and it cannot be said that such differen- tial rates have no reasonable nexus to the object sought  to be  achieved  or  the same are in any  manner  violative  of Article 14 of the Constitution. [10A-D]     D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR  165; distinguished.

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.  888- 892 of 1987, 757 of 1988 and 316 of 1989. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 7     H.S. Gururaja Rao, Mrs. C. Markandeya and S.  Markandeya for the Petitioners.     Krishnamurthy Iyer, P. Parthasarthi and T.V.S.N.  Chari- for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KASLIWAL, J. The above mentioned bunch of writ petitions under  Article  32 of the Constitution of  India  have  been filed  by the retired Government servants of the  Government of Andhra Pradesh having retired in between 1st April,  1978 and 28th October, 1979. The case of the petitioners is  that in pursuance to persistent demands made by the State Govern- ment Employees to revise their pay scales the Andhra Pradesh Government  by Government Order dated November 3,  1977  ap- pointed  Shri  A. Krishnaswamy, I.A.S. (Retd.)  as  the  Pay Revision  Commissioner.  By another Government  Order  dated January  28,  1978 the Pay Revision  Commissioner  was  also directed  to review the existing retirement  benefits  inter alia to all employees of the State Government and to examine the  question of extension of retirement benefits  and  make suitable  recommendations in that regard. The  Pay  Revision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Commissioner  submitted a report comprised of five  volumes. The  Commission  recommended that the date  from  which  the revised  scales  of pay would be given effect to  should  be April 1, 1978. In Paragraphs 9.42 to 9.45 of its report  the Pay Revision Commissioner specifically recommended that  the age  of retirement should be increased from 55 years  to  58 years.  It has been alleged that so far as  the  recommenda- tions  of  the  Commission in regard to  the  increased  pay scales are concerned, the same were accepted and implemented by the State Government w.e.f. April 1, 1978. But so far  as the  recommendation  in  regard to increase in  the  age  of superannuation  from  55  years to 58 years,  the  same  was implemented  only w.e.f. October 29, 1979  through  G.O.M.S. No. 283 Finance and Planning.     It  has  also been alleged by the petitioners  that  the State Government issued G.O. (P) No. 88 Finance and Planning dated March 26, 1980 whereby the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 were  promulgated.  The above rules divided  the  Government servants  for the purpose of pension into two parts,  Part-I applying  to all Government servants who were in service  on 29th  October,  1979  and Part-II applying to  such  of  the Government  servants who retired/died in between 1st  April, 1978  and  28th October, 1979 (both  dates  inclusive).  The contention of the petitioners is that by the above Rules two categories of pensioners 8 were  created with different rates of pension which is  com- pletely  arbitrary and in violation of the law  declared  by this  Hon’ble  Court  in D.S. Nakara & Others  v.  Union  of India,  [1983] 2 SCR 165. The petitioners  have,  therefore, prayed  that pension rules Part-II which has been  made  ap- plicable  to Government servants having retired between  1st April, 1978 and 28th October, 1979 be quashed and it may  be directed  that they would also be governed by Part-I of  the Rules  which is applicable to those Government servants  who were in service on 29th October, 1979.     The  counter affidavit has been filed on behalf  of  the State  of  Andhra Pradesh. In the counter affidavit  it  has been stated that Pay Revision Commissioner was appointed  to review  the structure of different scales of  Pay,  dearness allowance and other compensatory allowance of all categories of employees of the State Government, Local Bodies and Aided Institutions  as  well  as work  charge  establishments.  An additional  term  of reference was added for  reviewing  the existing  retirement benefit of all categories. After  care- fully  considering all the relevant factors  the  Government implemented  the  recommendations relating  to  revision  of scales of pay w.e.f. 1st April, 1978. As regards the age  of superannuation,  the Government of Andhra Pradesh  increased the  age  of superannuation to 58 years w.e.f.  October  29, 1979.  This increase in the age of superannuation could  not be implemented retrospectively as it would have led to a lot of  difficulties, but to compensate those who retired  after April  1,  1978 and before October 29, 1979  the  Government gave them benefits as under: (1)  The pension formula was increased from 33/80  to  30/60 for  all those who retired between 1.4.1978 and  28.10.1979. This increase was specifically given as they would not  have otherwise  been entitled to the revised pension  formula  of 33/66  which had been applied only to such Government  serv- ants who retired after 29.10.1979. (2)  Formula  for calculation of gratuity was  increased  to 1/3rd of emoluments for each completed six months period  of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 20 months  emolu- ments  and  limited to Rs.30,000. Earlier  the  formula  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

1/4th  of  pay  for every six months service  subject  to  a maximum of 16 1/2 times and emoluments limited to Rs.30,000. (3)  The  Family pension was increased to 30%  of  the  last drawn  pay without any maximum limit. Earlier the  rates  of Family 9 pension  were different for different ranges of pay and  the minimum was Rs.60 and maximum Rs.250.     It  was further submitted in the counter affidavit  that the  distinction between the pensioners in Part-I and II  is based  on  the date of retirement and is  clearly  connected with  the  age of superannuation which was  raised  from  55 years to 58 years. It is not correct to say that the Govern- ment had arbitrarily divided the pensioners into two groups. As  the date of superannuation was enhanced to 58  years  on 29.10.1979 it was necessary to draw a line between those who retired  earlier to that date and those who  retired  subse- quent  to  29.10.1979. It was pointed out that  the  pension formula  would  be  30/60  for  those  who  retired  between 1.4.1978 and 28.10.1979 and their pension worked out on  the basis  of 30/60 of the average emoluments and in respect  of those who retired on or after 29.10.1979, it would be worked out  as 33/66. Thus both the rules guarantee 50% of  pension irrespective of date of retirement.     It was also pointed out in the counter affidavit that  a writ  petition (civil) No. 12605/85 was filed by the  Andhra Pradesh  State Government Retired Officers  Association  and Others  v.  The  State of Andhra  Pradesh   and  Others   on identical   grounds  and   the same was  dismissed  by  this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 2.3.1987. In the above  case it  was  held that "In view of the  averments  contained  in paragraph  2(d) and 3 of the counter-affidavit, it is  quite clear  that the State Government was fully alive to  improve the  pensionary  benefit of those who  had  already  retired prior to October 29, 1979 and accordingly enhanced the rates of  pension.  We are satisfied that there is  a  discernible basis  for  differential rates of pension and it  cannot  be said  that such differential rates have no reasonable  nexus to  the  object sought to be achieved or  that  they  offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition is accord- ingly dismissed".     We have heard the arguments advanced by Learned  Counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the records and  the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. We  are fully  convinced that the claim of the petitioners is  based on  a complete misconception of the Rules. A perusal of  the Rules  clearly goes to show that Part-I of the Rules was  no doubt  made applicable to all Government servants who  would retire  on  or after 29.10.1979 while Part-II was  made  ap- plicable  to such Government servants who were holding  pen- sionable  posts on 31st March, 1978 and who retired  between 1st April, 1978 and 28th October, 1979 and this  distinction was necessary in view of the fact 10 that the age of superannuation for retirement was  increased from 55 years to 58 years w.e.f. 29th October, 1979.  Howev- er,  all  the benefits have been granted to  the  pensioners like  the petitioners who had retired between  1.4.1978  and 29.10.1979 in the amount of pension, retirement gratuity and family pension as granted to the Government servants falling under Part I. So far as the amount of pension is  concerned, the  formula of completed six monthly periods of  qualifying service was worked out as 30/60 of average emoluments  which was equal to 50% of the pay. On account of the fact that the Government  servants falling in Part-I and retiring  at  the

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

superannuation age of 58 years the above formula was  calcu- lated at 33/66 which was also 50% of the average emoluments. Similarly  in  the case of retirement  gratuity  and  family pension no distinction has been made in the case of the  two categories  of pensioners.. This clearly goes to  show  that neither there is any discrimination nor any disadvantage  to the  pensioners falling in the category of  petitioners  and the formula working out the amount of pension is based on  a rational principle and it cannot be said that such differen- tial rates have no reasonable nexus to the object sought  to be achieved or the same are in any manner violative of  Art. 14 of the Constitution.     In view of the circumstances mentioned above the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, (supra) is not at  all applicable  in the facts and circumstances of this case  and renders no assistance to the petitioners.     In  the result we find no force in these writ  petitions and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. G.N.                                  Petitions dismissed. 11