ALL MANIPUR PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION BY ITS SECRETARY versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 11-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
905
ALL MANIPUR PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION
BY ITS SECRETARY
v.
THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.10857 of 2016)
JULY 11, 2019
[M. R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Grant of benefit of revised pension – Creation
of two classes of pensioners – When discriminatory – Govt. of
Manipur issued office memorandum dated 21.04.1999 revising the
quantum of pension, however, it provided that those Govt. employees
who retired on or after 01.01.1996 shall be entitled to the revised
pension at a higher percentage and those who retired before
01.01.1996 shall be entitled at a lower percentage – Challenged
before the Single Judge of the High Court –Allowed– Set aside by
Division Bench –Held: State of Manipur has adopted the CCS
(Pension) Rules to be applicable to the State of Manipur and also
came out with the 1977 Pension Rules– All the government servants
retired in accordance with the provisions of the Pension Rules and
after completing qualifying service are entitled to the pension/
pensionary benefits– Therefore, all the pensioners form only one
homogeneous class – Issue in the present appeal is squarely covered
by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and
Others v. Union of India  – Division Bench clearly erred in not
following the said decision – On merits also, there is no valid
justification to create two classes, viz. one who retired pre-1996
and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of
revised pension, solely on the ground of financial constraint – Such
classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of
benefit of revised pension– All the pensioners form one class who
are entitled to pension as per the pension rules – Art.14 ensures to
all equality before law and equal protection of laws – Art.16 permits
a valid classification – A valid classification is truly a valid
discrimination– Whenever a cut-off date, as in the present case is
fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable
consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 905
  905
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied – Object
and purpose for revising the pension was due to the increase in the
cost of living – State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from
amongst similarly situated persons, a cut-off date for extension of
benefits especially pensionary benefits– Such classification has no
nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension, hence is
unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore rightly
set aside by the Single Judge – All the pensioners, irrespective of
their date of retirement, viz. pre-1996 retirees shall be entitled to
revision in pension at par with pensioners who retired post-1996 –
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Manipur Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 – r.49 – Constitution of India –
Arts.14 and 16.
Constitution of India– Arts.14 and 16 – Twin test for valid
discrimination/classification – When not satisfied – Discussed.
Constitution of India – Art.16 – Test for valid classification –
Held: Test for a valid classification may be summarised as a
distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible
differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought
to be achieved.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 The State of Manipur has adopted the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules to be applicable to the State of
Manipur. Therefore, all the government servants retired in
accordance with the provisions of the Pension Rules and after
completing qualifying service are entitled to the pension/
pensionary benefits.While passing the impugned judgment and
order, the Division Bench of the High Court has not followed the
decision of Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara case,
considering some of the observations made by this Court in the
subsequent decisions in the cases of R. Veerasamy; Amar Nath
Goyal and P.N. Menon to the effect that the decision in the case
of D.S. Nakara is one of the limited application and there is no
scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all schemes
made by the retirees or a demand for an identical amount of
pension irrespective of the date of retirement. It is not in dispute
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
907
that the State Government has adopted the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, to be applicable to the State of Manipur.  The
State has

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.