1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.990-992/2020     [@ SLP [C] NOS.18577-18579/2018]

MD. ALI IMAM & ORS.ETC.ETC.                       Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR  THR. ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.993/2020 [@ SLP(C) No.20783/2018 (XVI)]

CIVIL APPEAL NO.994/2020 [@ SLP(C) No.26881/2018 (XVI)]

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants before us are the retired teaching and non-

teaching employees of the deficit grant minority colleges of the

State  of  Bihar  who  are  aggrieved  by  what  is  alleged  to  be

unreasonable and arbitrary discrimination between such of them who

retired before 31.08.2010, as against those who retired after that

date, for the grant of benefit of the amendment made to the Triple

Benefit Scheme.

3. We  may,  at  the  inception,  first  note  that  the  appellants

before us have impleaded not only the State of Bihar but also the

2

concerned Universities being respondent Nos.3 to 8 since they are

affiliated to these Universities. The  universities  are  also

distinct from an aided institution in as much as when, in their

planned expenditure there is some amount of deficit, the Government

makes up the deficit as a matter of assistance to education.  It is

in this background that the controversy has to be analyzed by us.

4. The story starts from 05.11.1980 when resolution No.1500 was

passed by the Government of Bihar introducing the General Provident

Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity benefit (Triple Benefit Scheme) which

came into effect as on 01.04.1978.  The Chancellor vide memo dated

18.11.1980  approved  the  statute  for  grant  of  benefit  of  Triple

Benefit  Scheme.   The  Amendment  to  the  statute  was  made  on

25.11.1982.  

5. It  was  in  the  year  1998  that  a  representation  was  made

requesting  for  the  benefit  of  the  Scheme  to  be  extended  to

employees  in  such  deficit  colleges.  This  resulted  in  some

communications and enquiry and it was only on 18.01.2011 that a

resolution was passed extending the Triple Benefit Scheme to the

deficit colleges.  The relevant clauses of this which have been

assailed in the present proceedings are as under:

“(i) xxx xxx

(ii) This amendment statute will not be applicable to

such teaching and non-teaching staffs who retired before

the amendment of statute.

(ii) xxx xxx

(iii) xxx xxx

(iv) xxx xxx

3

(v) xxx xxx

(vi) This scheme will be applicable from the date of

amendment in statute.”

6. We may note at this stage itself that the extension of the

Scheme  to  the  employees  was  in  the  nature  of  a  benefit  being

extended to the employees, and did not form part of their original

terms and conditions of employment. The Amendment came into being

on 15.01.2014 but provided for a cut-off date of 31.08.2010.  The

rationale  of  this  is  stated  to  be  that  the  Cabinet  took  the

decision  on  that  date,  and  thus,  the  Amendment  was  not  made

applicable  from  the  date  it  was  carried  out  but  from  a

retrospective date, giving benefits for that period on the premise

of the Cabinet decision, to those who were in service on that date.

We may also note another aspect that all these resolutions and

decisions have a financial implication and thus, some leeway has to

be provided to the Government in deciding as to the extent to which

they can make funds available and that too for such a beneficial

aspect, keeping in mind these are not constituent unit colleges.   

7. The endeavour of the appellant was not successful before the

Division Bench of the Patna High Court which dismissed the writ

petition filed by them vide impugned order dated 8.11.2017.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length

and  the  plea  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  is  based  on  a

discriminative practice and the cut-off dates being so provided,

which  according  to  the  submissions  of  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant(s) are in violation of the principles of law laid down by

4

this Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India1.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have

pointed out that much water flowed after that judgment and, inter

alia, invited our attention to the judgment in State of West Bengal

& Ors. v. Ratan Behari Dey & Ors.2 (referred to in the impugned

judgment  itself)  opining  that  it  is  open  to  the  State  or  the

Corporation to change the conditions of service unilaterally, and

terminal  benefits  as  well  as  pensionary  benefits  constitute

conditions of service.  Thus, the power to revise salaries and/or

pay scales, as also terminal benefits/pensioners’ benefit can be

made  as  a  concomitant  of  that  power  so  long  as  the  date is

specified in a reasonable manner.   

10. If we see the rationale of the impugned judgment as set out

para 29 onwards, we may notice that the same is predicated on the

absence of arbitrariness in the applicability of the cut-off date

of the amendment in the Triple Benefit Scheme statute as well as

the rationality behind it based on the date of the Cabinet decision

granting Triple Benefit Scheme to such deficit grant colleges.  We

cannot find any fault with the reasoning in the impugned order.

11. We must notice that firstly there was really no obligation for

exercise of powers of the Government or University in the absence

of  the  institutions  being  not  constituent  colleges,  but  only

affiliated colleges.  In order to support education, a decision was

taken to provide deficit financing.  There was again no requirement

that  the  Triple  Benefit  Scheme  ought  to  be  extended  to  the

1 (1983) 1 SCC 305 2 (1993) 4 SCC 62

5

employees of these colleges and was not so initially extended.  A

second step was taken in this direction by extending the scheme.

The third step was the Amendment of the Scheme.  It can hardly be

said that by taking these beneficial steps, the State Government is

not liable to take into consideration the financial implications of

the  same,  and  that  the  benefits  should  be  extended  across  the

board.  The  amendments  could  have,  in  fact,  been  implemented

prospectively, but were given part-retrospective effect based on

the rationale of the date of the Cabinet decision.   

12. Apart from this, there may be other considerations in the mind

of  the  Executive  authority  while  fixing  a  particular  date  i.e.

economic  conditions,  financial  constraints,  administrative  and

other  circumstances,  and  if  no  reason  is  forthcoming  from  the

executive  for  fixation  of  a  particular  date,  it  should  not  be

interfered with by the Court unless the cut-off date leads to some

blatantly capricious or outrageous result. In such cases it has

been opined that there must be exercise of judicial restraint and

such matters ought to be left to the Executive authorities, to fix

the cut-off date, and the Government thus, must be left with some

leeway and free play at the joints in this connection.  Even if no

particular  reasons  are  given  for  the  cut-off  date  by  the

Government,  the  choice  of  cut-off  date  cannot  be  held  to  be

arbitrary  (unless  it  is  shown  to  be  totally  capricious  or

whimsical)- Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. N. Subbarayudu &

Ors3.

3 (2008) 14 SCC 702

6

13. We are thus of the view that the impugned judgment deserves

our imprimatur and these appeals are dismissed, leaving the parties

to bear their own costs.

………………………………………..J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

………………………………………..J. [K.M. JOSEPH]

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 04, 2020.

7

ITEM NO.4               COURT NO.12               SECTION XVI

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s)  for  Special  Leave  to  Appeal  (C)   No(s).   18577- 18579/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  08-11-2017 in CWJC No. 17286/2011, CWJC No. 12376/2014 and CWJC No. 8414/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Patna)

MD. ALI IMAM & ORS.                                Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR THR. ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 20783/2018 (XVI) IA No. 98802/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED  JUDGMENT IA No. 98804/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 26881/2018 (XVI) (  IA  No.135146/2018-CONDONATION  OF  DELAY  IN  FILING  and  IA No.135151/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.135150/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)   Date : 04-02-2020 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.B. Upadhayay, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rana Prashant, Adv. Mr. Heyshiv Parasher, Adv.

                   For Respondent(s) Mr. Saket Singh, Adv.

Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR                   

Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR                               UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

Delay condoned in SLP [C] No.26881/2018. Leave granted. The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications stand disposed of.

(ASHA SUNDRIYAL)                                (ANITA RANI AHUJA)   AR cum PS   COURT MASTER

[signed order is placed on the file]