http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: M C. DHINGRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/02/1996

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

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   463        1996 SCALE  (2)321

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        O R D E R      Leave granted.      We  have   heard  counsel  for  the  parties.  The appellant while  working  in  the  State  Service  from January 31,  1948, was selected as a Railway Magistrate and  had   taken  charge   on  February  1,  1973.  The Government of  India had issued a Circular on March 31, 1982 which  envisaged with the concurrence of the State Governments, the following:      "1. The  Government  of  India  had      been  considering  in  consultation      with  the  State  Governments,  the      question of sharing on a reciprocal      basis, the proportionate pensionary      liability  in   respect  of   those      temporary   employees    who    had      rendered  temporary  service  under      the    Central     Government/State      Governments prior to securing posts      under     the     various     State      Governments/Central  Government  on      their own  volition in  response to      advertisement     or     circulars,      including those  by the State/Union      Public Service  Commissions and who      are eventually  confirmed in  their      new  posts.   It  has   since  been      decided in   consultation  with the      State  Governments   f   that   the      proportionate pensionary  liability      in  respect  of  temporary  service      rendered    under    the    Central      Government and State Governments to      the   extent under the Rules of the      respective  Government,   will   be      shared   by    the      Governments

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    concerned,  on  a  service    share      basis,  so   that  the   Government      servants are allowed the benefit of      counting their  qualifying  service      both   under the Central Government      and the State Governments for grant      of pension  by the  Government from      where they   eventually retire. The      gratuity, if   any, received by the      Government employee  for  temporary      service under the Central  or State      Governments will,  however, have to      be   refunded   by   him   to   the      Government concerned.      2. The Government servants claiming      the benefit  of combined service in      terms  of above decision are likely      to fall  into one  of the following      categories:      (1)   Those    who   having    been           retrenched   from the  service           of      the      Central/State           Governments secured  on  their           own      employment      under           State/Central      Governments           either   with    or    without           interruption between  the date           of retrenchment   and the date           of new appointment;      (2)   Those   who   while   holding           temporary      post      under           Central/State Government apply           for posts  under State/Central           Government   through    proper           channel with proper permission           of     the      Administrative           Authority concerned;      (3)   Those   who   while   holding           temporary        post    under           Central/State      Governments           apply    for    posts    under           State/Central      Governments           direct without  the permission           of     the      Administrative           Authority concerned and resign           their previous  post  to  join           the  new   appointments  under           State/Central Governments.           The benefit  may be allowed to      the    Government    servants    in      categories (1) and (2) above. Where      an  employee  in  category  (2)  is      required     for     administrative      reasons, for  satisfying  technical      requirement, to  tender resignation      on the  temporary post  held by him      before joining the new appointment,      a certificate  to the  effect  that      such resignation  has been tendered      for administrative  reasons  and/or      to satisfy  a technical requirement      to join,  with pro-permissions  the      new post,  may   be issued  by  the      authority       accepting       the      resignation.  A   record  of   this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    certificate may also be made in his      service    book     under    proper      attestation to  enable him  to  get      this  benefit   at  the    time  of      retirement. Government  servant  in      category (3)  will  obviously,  not      entitled to  count  their  previous      service for pension.      3. The  above arrangement  will not      apply  to   the  employees  of  the      Governments of  Jammu  and  Kashmir      and Nagaland.      4. These  orders  come  into  force      with effect  from the date of issue      and cases  of all  such  Government      servants retiring  on this date and      thereafter   will    be   regulated      accordingly.      [G.I. Dept..  of Per. & A.R. Letter      No.3(20)Pen.(A)/79    dated    31st      March, 1982  addressed to all State      Governments   except    Jammu   and      Kashmir & Nagaland]      Note:   -    Sharing   of   pension      liability between Central and State      Governments    has    since    been      dispensed    with    effect    from      1.4.1987."       When  the appellant  had asked  for proportionate pension computing  the previous  service, it was denied to him.  Consequently, he  filed O.A. No.2335/89 in the Central Administrative  Tribunal, New  Delhi. By  order dated 19.10.1994,  it was  dismissed on  the ground  of delay. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      It is  seen that though that appellant had retired on February  1, 1973, since the question of tagging the previous service  rendered in  the State  Government on temporary basis  and the similar cases are pending, the Government had  taken a  decision on  March 31, 1982 to tag  the   previous  service  for  computation  of  the pension. Learned counsel appearing for the  respondents contended that  clause 4  of the  abovesaid Circular is one of the conditions which prescribes that it would be applicable to  the Government servants who retired from that date,  namely. March 31, 1982. Since the appellant had retired on February 1, 1973, he is not eligible. We find no  force in  the contention.  All the persons who rendered temporary  service prior  to their joining the Government of  India    Service  have  been  given  the benefit of  fixation of  the pension payable by tagging the temporary  service. The  cut off  date is arbitrary violating Article  14 of  the Constitution  of   India. Having   grouped    all   the   similar   circumstanced employees, fixing  the cut  off date and giving benefit to those who retired thereafter is obviously arbitrary. In similar  circumstances, following  the ratio in D.S. Nakara &  Ors vs.  Union of  India [(1983)  1 SCC 305], this Court held in the case of R.L. Marwah vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1987) 3 SCR 928] that such a restriction is arbitrary  violating Article  14. On  the facts  and circumstances, we  find that the restriction imposed in clause 4  of the  Circular is  violative of Article 14. It  is,   therefore,  unconstitutional.   However,  the appellant will  be entitled  to the   pro  rate pension from  March 1982.

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

     The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.  The respondents are  directed to  work out and release  the pension of the appellant within a period of six  months from the date of the receipt of this order.