LexINDIAN EX-SERVICES LEAGUE AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
INDIAN EX-SERVICES LEAGUE AND ORS. ETC.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
JANUARY 29, !991
'
[B.C. RAY, M.H. KANIA, K. JAGANNATHA SHETIY,
L.M. SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ:]
Service-Pension Rules: Pension-Petitioners ex-servicemen-
Relief cld,imed in substance of 'one rank, one pension' on the basis of
Nakara's case-Claim proceeds on misreading of Nakara-Rejected.
-._,,.,..-
Gratuity-Same Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to the pre-
·~-
1.4.1979 retirees as to the post-1.4.1979 retirees sought-Petitions dis-
missed-Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
.,..
Dearness allowance-Merger of D.A. Backwards-Claim untenable.
Petitioners who are ex-servicemen have moved these Writ Peti-
tion~ under Article 32 of the constitution as a sequal to the decision of
this Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India. The relief claimed
by them, in substance, though not said in so many words is to the effect
that the result of the decision in Nakara is that all the retirees who held
the same rank irrespective of their date of retirement must get the same
amount of pension and this should be the amount which was calculated
and shown in tli~ appendices to the Memorandum (Ex. P-2) challenged
in Nakara.
Similarly one of the prayers made in these Petitions is for grant of
same Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to the pre-1.4.1979 retirees as to
the Post 1.4.1979 retirees.
Another claim made was for merger Of D.A. backwards. Conse-
quent to the decision in Nakara one G.O. No. F. 1(4)82/D (Pension/
Services) dated 22.11.1983 in respect of personnel below the commis-
sioned rank and the other G.O. No. 1(4)/82/1/D (Pension/Services)
dated 3.12.1983 in respect of Commissioned Officers were issued
recomputing the revised pension of pre-1.4.1979 retirees of Armed
Forces as on 1.4.1979 according to the liberalised pension scheme dated
28.9.1979 as modified by the decision in Nakara. It is these two G.O's
which are under challenge in these petitions.
158
-
>---
EX-SERVICES LEAGUE v. U.0.1.
159
Dismissing all the Writ Petitions, this Court,
A
,,-A
HELD: In substance, even though learned counsel tor the peti·
---.../'
~
--
'- 'r
-""'
-
___,.
--
:'{
tioners do not say so, the arguments amount to the claim of 'one rank,
one pension' for all retirees of Armed Forces irrespective of their date
of retirement. Unless this claim can be treated as flowing from the relief
granted in Nakara, the relief claimed though differently worded cannot
B
be granted. [166H-167A]
The claim in these petitions is untenable and it proceeds on a
mis-reading of the Nakara decision. The conclusion of the Constitution
Bench in Nakara was that the benefits of liberalisation and extent
thereof given in accordance with the liberalised scheme have to be given c
equally to all retirees irrespective of their date of retirement and those
benefits cannot be confined to only the persons who retired on or after
the specified date because all retirees constitute one class irrespective of
their date of retirement for the purpose of grant of the benefits of
liberalised pension. To give effect to this conclusion the only relief
granted was to strike down that portion of the memorandum by which
D
the benefit of the liberalised pension scheme was conf"med to only
persons retiring on or after the specified date with the result the benefit
was extended to all retirees, irrespective of their date of retirement.
Once this position from the decision in Nakara is borne in mind, the
fallacy in the petitioner's contention becomes obvious and their ~laim
based only on Nakara is rendered untenable. [167D-G]
E
According to that decision, pension of all earlier retirees was to be
recomputed as on the specified date in accordance with the liberalised
formula of computation. For this purpose there was no revision of the
emoluments of the earlier retirees under the scheme. It was clearly
stated that 'if the pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be
F
by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground
that,some retired earlier and some retired later'. This according to us is
the decision in Nakara and no more. The question for decision is
whether the petitioner's claim flows from that decision and there is
nothing in Nakara to support such claim. There is no scope for enlarg-
ing the ambit of that decision to cover all claims by retirees or a demand
G
for an identical amount of pensExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.