LexDHAN RAJ AND ORS. versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A OHAN RAJ AND ORS. v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. MARCH 23, 1998 B [K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.) Service law : Pension-Denial of-To appellants tempormy employees with 30-40 C years of service-Notification dated 9. 6.1981-Pension payable to temporary employees with 20 years of service Appellants excluded, since retired before the date of notificaiton-By further G. 0. dated 3.10.1986 all the tempormy employees granted pension-Held, under the facts, appellant entitled to pensionary benefit-The plea of state that G.O. dated 3. I0.1986 is violative D of Article 177 of J. & K. Civil Service Regulations, deprecated and the G. 0. held as not violative-Denial of pensionary benefit without any sound reasoning or any justifiable differentia is against the spirit of constitution- Constitution of India, 1950. Directive Principles-Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir 1957 Section 124-.Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations- Artic/e 177. E F Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Cut off date-Different criteria for enforcement of notification entitling pensionary benefit between similarly place'd employees-Held, there is no justifiable criteria for the· state Government to draw the line between those who retired earlier and those who retired after the date of notification. Administrative law : Subordinate legislation-Attempt of State Government to get its own order held illegal in judicial review-Held, is inappropriate. G Doctrine of legitimate Expectation-Person in service for long period earns his legitimate expectation. Interpretation of Statute-Internal aids- 'Heading'-Consideration of The appellants, employees of erstwhile undertaking, who were taken H on deputation with Road Transport Corporation, opted for temporary service 404 OHAN RAJ 1·. STA TE 405 in the year 1969, 1972 and 1979. They retired before 9.6.1981 after putting A in service of 30-.tO years. Vide notification dated 9.6.81, a temporary Government servant with 20 years of service was given pensionary benefit by an amending Article 177 of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulation. The respondent State, after the above notification demarcated lines to B give pensionary benefits to only those who retired after 9.6.81 and thus the -< appellants were excluded from this benefit. As a result of various representations of the appellants, pensionary benefit was granted to all the temporary employees of the earstwhile undertaking, vide G.O. dated 3.10.1986. The appellants were refused the grant of pension which they claimed c on the basis of G.O. dated 3.10.1986. But the respondent State denied it on the ground that G.0. dated 3.10.1986 is not applicable to those who retired before 9.6.1981. Against the stand of the state, the appellants filed a writ petition before ~ High Court, which was allowed by Single judge directing the State to grant D ~ pensionary benefits under the order dated 3.10.1986. L.P.A. filed by State against the above order, was allowed on the ground that G.O. dated 3.10.1986 was contrary to the service conditions and the law governing the appellants. In appeal to this court, the respondent State contended that the appellants were not entitled to pensionary benefits because G.O. dated 3.10.1986 has E to be read with notification dated 9.6.1981; hence the benefit under it can only to granted to those who retired after 9.6.1981 and that the G.O. dated 3.10.1986 was not retrospective in operation. Alternatively it was contended that the G.O. dated 3.10.1986 is in violation of Article 177 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulation. F f "> Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : I. I. The appellants are entitled to the pensionary benefits in terms of and as held by Single judge of the High Court. 1414-BI 1.2. There is no substance in the contention of the respondents that G the G.O. dated 3.10.86 when read with the earlier notification dated 9.6.81, the benefit is only to be given to those who retired after the said date. If that K be so, there was no need to issue the order dated 3.10.86. Government was aware of the amendment already made through the notification to Article 177 of the State Civil Service Regulations. If the stand of the respondent State is to be accepted, then the representation of the appellants should have been H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998] 2 S.C.R. A rejected, but that was not so. In spite of the said amendment the Government issued
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.