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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3939-3941 of 2002

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

RESPONDENT: N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R REPORTABLE   

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3939-3941 OF 2002 WITH C.A. NO.3983/2004

       These appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment and order of the   Division Bench of the High Court.  By the impugned order, the High Court directed that  the respondents be paid the pensionary benefits from the respective date of their  retirement under the provisions of Pension Rules 1980.

       We have heard the parties at length.

       Briefly stated the facts are as follows.

       The respondents were Lecturers in private aided college.  The age of superannuation  of the respondents was 60 years.  By an amendment of the Education Code in 1993, the  age of superannuation of the respondents  has been brought down to  ......2.

- 2 -

58 years.  In the said amendment it was also provided that the respondents shall be  entitled to pension with effect from 1st November 1992.

       Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred writ petition before the High Court.   The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the parties, was of the view that the  cut off date 1/11/1992 fixed by the Government was arbitrary and discriminatory.   

       In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fix ed by  the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and  many other administrative and other attending circumstances.  This Court is also of the  view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the  Court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive  authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and  arbitrary. (See State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 754).

       No doubt in D.S. Nakara & Ors.  vs.  Union of India 1983(1) SCC 305 this Court had  struck down the cut off date in  ......3.

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

- 3 -

connection with the demand of pension.  However, in subsequent decisions this Court  has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara’s Case (supra), as  observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors.  vs.  Amar  Nath Goyal & Ors. (supra).

       There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to  which a particular cut off date has been fixed.  These considerations can be financial,  administrative or other considerations.  The Court must exercise judicial restraint and  must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date.  The  Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection.   

       In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the c hoice  of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for  the same in the counter affidavit filed by the Government, (unless it is shown to be  totally capricious or whimsical) vide State of Bihar  vs.  Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC  368, Union of Indian & Anr.  vs.  Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal  1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para  5), Ramrao & Ors.  vs.  All India Backward Class Bank Employees  Welfare   Association  &  Ors.  2004 (2) SCC 76  .....4.

- 4 -

(vide para 31), University Grants Commission  vs.  Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10)  SCC 536, etc.  It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter  affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date  has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative  of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous  result.   

       As has been held by this Court in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr.  vs.    Chander Hass & Anr. 2008(3) 3 JT 221 and in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.  vs.  Smt. P. Laxmi Devi  2008(2) 8 JT 639 the Court must maintain judicial restraint in  matters relating to the legislative or executive domain.

       For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside.  Th e  appeals are allowed.