D.S. NAKARA & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 17-12-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 62 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

165 
A 
D.S. NAKARA & OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
December 17, 1982 
{Y.V. CllANDllACHUD, C.J., V.D. TuLzApulll:AB. D.A. DESAI, 
0. CHINNAPPA RBl>DY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JI.) 
ConS/ltution of Indio, Art. U-Cntral Clril S1rvic., (P1n1/on) Rules, 1972 
olld R1gulatlo1U gororit/ltg p11UI011 for ..trmod Porc11 P1rsonn1i-Llblral/1ation 
in computallon of p1/Ulon eff1cl/P1 from •P1Ciffed dati-Di.ld., pensl0111r1 •o .. 
lo co11f•f b1ntfit 01t some whil1 d1nyi,,g it to oth•r1-Cla11ificatlon arbitrary, 
devoid of ratio11,/ 111xus to o!J}1.:t of liberalisation aNI violative of A.rt. If.. 
co .. tltMllO• of India, ..trt. 14-Doctrl•• of llV1FObility-S1 .. ra11e• 11101 
lum •if•ct of Mlar1in1 scope of /q/slallon . 
R11le1 Qlld Re111Iatlon1 f.J111rning tra11t of p1n1ion-P1nsion is a rifht-
De/ur.d prtio• of comPMJOlion for .tlfPice rtnder1d-Al10 a soclal~welfar• 
,...,.,,. 
By a Memorandum datod M•y 25, 1979 (ll•bibit P-1) the Government 
of India liberalisod the formull for corupatalion. of pension in re•poct or 
employ ... aovetned by tbe Central Civil Suvicos (Pon1ion) Rule•. 1972 and 
made it applicable to employees retiring on or after Ma.rch 31, 197~. By anothdr 
Memorandum issued on September 23, 1979 (B•bibit P-2) it oxtendod the ••mo, 
subject to certain limitatiOll!, to tbe Arm"d Forces' personnel retiring on or after 
April t, 1979. Petitioners I and 2 who had retired in tho year 1972 from tho 
Central Civil Service and the Armed Forces' service respectively, and petitioner 
No. 3, a rogisterod society ~ousing the ca- of pensioners all over the country, 
challenaed tho validity of the above two memoranda 'in so far as tbo liberalisation 
in computation of pension bad boon made applicable only to those retiring on or 
after the date specified and tho bonefit of liberalisation had been denied to all 
those who bad retired earlier. 
Counsel for petitioners contended th1t all p~n~ioJ!rs entitled til re,;aiv~ 
pension under the relevant rules form a class irrespective of the dates of their 
retirement and there cannot be a mini-classification within this classi that the 
differential treatment accorded to those who had retired prior to th~ sp~cifi~d 
date is violative of Art. 14 as the choice of specified date is wholly arbitrary 
and tho classification hued on the fortuitous circumstance of retirement before 
or subaoquent to the specified date is invalid; and that the scheme of liberalisa-
tion in computation of pension must be uniformly enforced with regard to all 
pensioners. 
I 
c 
I 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
166 
SUPREME COUB.T REPORTS 
(1983] 2 S.C.M. 
Counsei for resporidents contended that a classification based oa. the 
date of retirement is valid for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits; that 
the specified date is an integral part of the scheme of liberalisation and the 
Government would never have enforced the scheme devoid of the date; that the 
doctrine of severability cannot be invoked to sever the specified date from 
the scheme as it would have the effect or enlarging the class of pensioners 
covered by the scheme and when the legislature has expressly defined the class 
to which the legislation appJies it would be outside the judicial function to 
enlarge the class; that there is not a single case where the court bas included 
some category within the scope of provbioos of a law to maintain its consti· 
tutionality; that since the scheme of liberalisation has financial implications, 
the Court cannot make it retroactive; that if more persons divided the available 
cake the residue falling to the share of each, especially to the share of 
those who are not before the court would become far less and therefore no 
relief could be given to the petitioners. that pension ~s always correlated to the 
date of of retirement and the court Cannot change the date of retirement and 
impOse freSh commutation benefit Which may burden the exchequer to thC tune 
of Rs. 233 crores; and that the third petifioner has no locus standi in the cBse. 
Allowing the petitiolis, 
HELD: 
Article 14 strikes at a-rbitrarinfss in State· action and ensures 
fairness and equality of treatment. It is attracted where equals are treated 
differently without any reasonable basis. The principle underlying the guarantee 
is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges 
conferred and liabilities imposed. 
Equal laws would -have to ·be"'applied to atl 
in the same situation and there should be no dis

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