DES RAJ BHATNAGAR AND ANR. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 13-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
DES RAJ BHATNAGAR AND ANR. ETC. 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA 
FEBRUARY 13, 1991 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: Articles 14 and 16. Central Government 
employees absorbed in Central Public Sector Undertakings-Entitle--"y-
inent of pensionary benefits-Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 
1972: 0. Ms. dated 13.2.1976 and 22.10.1983-Validity of. 
Service Law: Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972: 
_..,. _ 
Liberalised Pension Formula, 1979: 0. Ms. dated 13.2.1976 and 
22. 10.1983-Central Government pensioners-Relief and adhoc relief 
on pension-Central Government employees absorbed in Central'-
Public Sector Undertakings-Retiring from Central Government service --..,,....----_ 
-Commuted original pension-Whether eligible to be treated as Cent-
ral Government pensioners. 
Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972: Commutation of 
pensiolJ,-:.Effect of 
The petitioners, who were Central Government employees, on 
their absorption in a Central Public Sector Undertaking, retired from 
Central Government service on different dates prior to 31.3.1979, and 
commuted their original pension for a lump sum as permissible under 
the Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. 
F 
The Central Government issued O.M. dated 13.2.1976, enabling 
an officer who commuted a portion of his pension to be eligible for relief 
and ad hoc reliefs on the full amount of his original pension, but -~ 
-
persons who got themselves absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings 
were not eligible to the said benefits. Taking note of the erosion in the 
value of the rupee, the Government, by O.M. dated 25.5.1979, intro-
G 
duced the ~Liberalised Pension Formula, benefit of which, by this 
Court's decision in D.S. Nakara's case was extended to all Central 
Government pensioners irrespective of the dates of their retirement. In 
order to implement the said decision, the Government issued O.M. 'r-
d,ated 22.10.1983, but the benefit was not given to those persons who got 
them-selves absorbed in Central Public Sector Undertakings and 
H 
received/opted to receive commuted raise of lf3rd of pension as well as 
35() 
DES RAJ V. U.0.1. 
357 
-----~terminal benefits equal to the commuted value of the balance amount of 
-; pension left after such commutation. 
A 
The petitioners challenged the validity of the aforesaid 0. Ms. 
dated 13.2.1976 and 22.10.1983 and contended that for the purposes of 
grant of the full benefit of relief or ad hoc relief, the Rules do not make 
any distinction between an officer who has sought commutation of a 
_portion of his original pension and one who has not sought any such 
-~ 
commutation; and as the petitioners who opted for commutation of 
their original pension in accordance with the Rules were being arbitrar-
ily and without just and reasonable cause deprived of the relief, the 
~ aforesaid Office Memoranda were vitiated by an inherent discrimina-
tion and were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
The facts of the appeal were identical to those of the petitions 
except that the appellant came before this Court in appeal against the 
-~ order of the High Court which dismissed his writ petition. 
On the question: whether the petitioners/appellants fell in the 
D 
category of Central Government pensioners for the purpose of entitle-
ment to the benefit of the Liberalised Pension Formula or did they fall in 
a different class altogether and were not entitled to get any such benefit, 
Dismissing the writ petitions and the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Clause 5 of O.M. dated 22.10.1983 is clear that such 
Central Government employees who got themselves absorbed under 
Central Public Sector Undertakings prior to 1.4.1979 and opted to 
receive commuted raise for 1/3rd of pension as well as terminal benefit 
equal to the commuted value of the balance amount of pension were not 
--"\ 
entitled to any benefit as they were not Central Government Pensioners 
t -~son 1.4.1979. [362B-C] 
E 
F 
2. Commutation brings about certain advantages. The person 
who commutes his pension gets a lump sum which ordinarily he would 
have received in the course of his spread over period subject to his 
continuing to live. The two advantages of the commutation are-the G 
. availability of a lump sum and the risk factor. The allowance of Family 
-- --.... Pension to such persons does not however make them entitled to get any 
benefit that is given to the pensioners on account of Liberalised Pension 
Rul

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