GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. versus N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 26-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 522 
A 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
-~ 
v. 
N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3939-3941 of 2002) 
B 
MARCH 26, 2008 
(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
- ~ 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article· 14 - Grant of pensionary benefits to lecturers in 
c private aided College - Fixing of cut off date as 1.11.1992 -
High Court holding cut off date fixed, as arbitrary and 
discriminatory- HELD: Fixing cut off dates is within the domain 
of executive authority and Court should not normally interfere 
with such order unless it appears to be blatantly discriminatory 
D and arbitrary - Cut off date is fixed by executive authority 
keeping in view economic conditions, financial constraints and 
·J 
many other administrative and attendant circumstances -
Even if no reason has been given as to why a particular cut off 
date has been chosen, Court must still not declare that date 
E to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off 
date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result 
- Service Law - Grant of pensionary benefits - Cut off date -
Educational Institution - Pension to Lecturers - Cut off date. 
F 
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (2005) 
6 sec 754- relied on. 
D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India 1983(1) SCC 305 
J._ 
- referred to. 
Judicial Restraint: 
G 
Cut off date - Fixed by Government for grant of pension 
to Lecturers - HELD: Court must exercise judicial restraint 
and must ordinarily leave it to executive authorities to fix cut 
off date - Government must be left with some leeway and free , 
' 
Pl 
522 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. 
523 
N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS. 
~-
play at the joints in this connection - Court must maintain A 
iudicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or 
executive domain. 
State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368; 
Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 
B 
212; Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank 
.... 
Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76; 
· University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & 
Ors. 1996(10) SCC 536; Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf 
Club & Anr. vs. Chander Hass & Anr. 2008(3) 3 JT 221 and in 
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Smt. P Laxmi Devi c 
• . 
2008(2) 8 JT 639 - relied on . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL 
No. 3939-3941 of 2002. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 2316/2000 of D 
l 
the High of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. 
Nos. 2089, 2461 and 2480/1990. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 3983 of 2004. 
E 
D. Bharathi Reddy. for the Appellants. 
P.S. Narasimha, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Abid Ali Beeran P. 
and Neeru Vaid for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
F 
... 
These appeals have been preferred by the State against 
the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court. 
By the impugned order, the High Court directed that the 
respondents be paid the pensionary benefits from the respective G 
date of their retirement under the provisions of Pension Rules 
1980. 
t 
We have heard the parties at length. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows. 
H 
524 . 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondents were Lecturers in private aided college. 
. .,.. 
The age of superannuation of the respondents was 60 years. 
By an amendment of the Education Code in 1993, the age of 
superannuation of the respondents has been brought down to 
58 years. In the said amendment it was also provided that the 
B respondents shall be entitled to pension with effect from 1st 
November 1992. 
.. ' 
Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred writ petition 
before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, 
after hearing the parties, was of the view that the cut off date 1 I 
c 11/1992 fixed by the Government was arbitrary and 
discriminatory. 
In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that 
the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in 
D view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many 
other administrative and other attending circumstances. This 
J 
Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the 
domain of the executive authority and the Court should not 
normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive 
E authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it 
blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. (See State of Punjab & 
Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal 

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