LexCHAUDHARY KESAVA RAO AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\•
~·
CHAUDHARY KESA VA RAO AND ORS. ETC.
A
''·
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AUGUST 24. 1990
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
B
Civil Services: Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980:
Parts I and JI-Division of government servants-Based on dates of
retirement-Whether discriminatory .
• ,.
The Andhra Pradesh State Government appointed a Pay Revision c
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 recommended that the retirement age should be increased from· 55
D
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.
J!
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 Governmenf
servants who retired/died in between 1.4. 78 and 28.10. 79. (Part-II).
F
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.
G
The Respondent State contended that the 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 certain benefits. It was further contended that since the date of
-{
superannuation was enhanced to 58 years on 29.10.1979 it was neces,
H
5
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] Supp. l S.C.R.
sary to draw a line between those who re"tired earlier to that date and those
who retired subsequent to 29.10.1979, which was not arbitrary and the
rules guarantee 50% of pension to both categories irrespective of the
date ofretirement.
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 Govern-
ment servants who would retire on or after 29.10.1979 while Part-II
',i,
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 retirement was
increased from SS years to 58 years w.e.f. 29th October, 1979. [9G-H; lOA]
2. All the benefits have been granted to the pensioners like the
petitioners who had retired between I.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 SO% of the pay. On account of the fact that the
Government servants falling in Part-I are retiring at the superannua-
tion age of 58 years the above formula was claculated as 33/66 which
was also 50% of the average emoluments. Similarly in the case of retire-
ment 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 pension-
ers 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 differential rates have no reasonable nexus to the object
sought to be achieved or the same are in any manner viol•tive of Article
14 of the Constitution. [lOA-D]
D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 16S;
distinguished.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 888-892
of 1987, 757of !988and316ofl989.
,.
H
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of IExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.