COMMANDER HEAD QUARTER CALCUTTA AND ORS. versus CAPT. BIPLA BENDRA CHANDA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 05-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
COMMANDER HEAD QUARTER 
CALCUTTA AND ORS. 
v. 
CAPT. BIPLA BENDRA CHANDA 
NOVEMBER 5, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Pension-Commissioned Officer in Defence-Retired in May 1982-
C As per rules then existing, only 2!3rd of pre-commissioned service was 
counted for the purpose of pension and a minimum period of qualifYing 
service provided for earning pension-Appellant found ineligible for 
pension-Ru/es revised w.ef 1.1.1986 and full pre-commissioned period 
taken into account for purposes of pension-Claim for benefit under revised 
D rules-Held, the revised rules which come into operation w.ef 1.1.1986 
were not given retrospective effect-Respondent cannot be made 
retrospectively eligible for pension by virtue of the revised rules. 
E 
F 
G 
State of West Bengal v. Ratan Behari Dev, (1993] 4 SCC 62, relied 
on. 
D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165 and 
M.C. Dhingra v. Union of India and Ors., (1996] 7 SCC 564, 
distinguished. 
Krishna Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 
207 and· Indian Ex-services League and Ors. Etc. v. Union of India and 
Ors. Etc., [1991] 1 SCR 158, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14172 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.7.94 of the Calcutta High 
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 24 I 9 of I 992. 
P.P. Malhotra, Wasim A. Qadri and Ms. Anil Katiyar for the 
H Appellants. 
472 
COMMANDER HEAD QTR. v. BIPLABENDRA CHANDA 
473 
Bijan Ghosh for the Respondents. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Heard the counsel for both the parties. 
Leave granted. 
B 
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of a Division Bench of 
the Calcutta High Court dismissing the writ appeal preferred by the 
appellants. The respondent was a Commissioned Officer. He retired on 
May 18, 1982. According to the Rules then in force, only 2/3rd of the pre-
commissioned service was allowed to be counted towards qualifying service C 
for earning pensionary benefits. A minimum period of qualifying service 
was also provided for becoming eligible for pension. On the basis of the 
said Rule, the respondent was found ineligible for grant of pension and 
accordingly no pension was granted tc him. About four years later, the 
Rules relating to qualifying service were changed [with effect from January D 
I, 1986] based upon the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. 
One of the features of these Rules was that full precommissioned service 
was to be taken into count for working out the qualifying service required 
for earning pension·ary benefits. Jn others words, whereas previously only 
2/3rd of the pre-commissioned service was to be taken into count for 
determining the eligibility and the quantum of pension, the entire pre- E 
commissioned service could be taken into count as per the Rules which 
came into force with effect from January I, 1986. The respondent laid a 
claim for grant of pension on the basis of the said new Rules or revised 
Rules, as they may be called. That was denied whereupon he approached 
the High Court by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed 
the writ petition relying upon the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara F 
and Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165, which order has been 
affirmed by, the Division Bench. 
We are of the opinion that the ratio of D.S. Nakara has no application 
here. D.S. Nakara prohibits discrimination between pensioners forming a G 
single class and governed by the same Rules. It was held in that case that 
the date specified in the liberalised pension Rules as the cut-off date was 
chosen arbitrarily. That is not the case here. No pension was granted to the 
respondent because he was not eligible therefor as per the Rules in force 
on the date of his retirement. The new and revised Rules [it is not necessary 
for the purpose of this case to go into the question whether the Rules that H 
474 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS[l996] SUPP.8 S.C.R. 
A came into force with effect from January 1, 1986 were new Rules or 
merely revised or liberalised Rules] which came into force with effect 
from January 1, 1986 were not given retrospective effect. The respondent 
cannot be made retrospectively eligible for pension by virtue of these 
Rules in such a case. This is not a case where a discrimination is being 
made among pensioners who were similarly situated. Accepting the 
B respondent's contention would have very curious consequences even a 
pers

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