LexKALLAKKURICHI TALUK RETIRED OFFICIAL ASSOCIATION, TAMILNADU, ETC. versus STATE OF TAMILNADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 883 KALLAKKURICHI TALUK RETIRED OFFICIAL ASSOCIATION, TAMILNADU, ETC. v. STATE OF TAMILNADU (Civil Appeal Nos. 8848-8849 of 2012) JANUARY 17, 2013 [D.K. JAIN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Service Law: A B c Pension - Calculation of - Government order - While calculating pension, classified the employees retiring before and after 1.6.1988 - Lower component of 'dearness pay' was extended to the employees retiring after 1.6.1988 vis-a-vis the employees who retired prior thereto - Held: Such classification 0 is arbitrary and discriminatory and is liable to be set aside as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Tami/nadu Pension Rules, 1976 - r.30. Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Valid E classification - A classification to be valid, must be based on just objective and differentiation must have reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved - Any classification without reference to the object sought to be achieved, would be arbitrary and violative of the protection offered under Art. 14 F and also discriminatory and violative of protection offered under Art.16 - Quantum of discrimination is irrelevant to a challenge based on a plea of arbitrariness. Words and Phrases - 'Dearness Pay' - Meaning of. The employees of the State Government who retired on or after ~ .6.1988 challenged the Government Order dated 9.8.1989, whereby the pensionary benefits of an 883 G H 884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R. A employee retired/retiring on or after 1.6.1988 were required to be computed by adding 'dearness allowance' to 'dearness pay' at a fixed percentage. By virtue of he said determination, the employees retiring on or after 1.6.1988 were at disadvantage as compared to the B employees who had retired prior thereto. High Court allowed the petition holding that the order dated 9.8.1989 was unsustainable. Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single Judge. Hence the present appeals. c Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The Constitution of India ensures to all, equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. These rights flow to an individual under Articles 14 and D 16 of the Constitution. The extent of benefit or loss in such a determination is irrelevant and inconsequential. The extent to which a benefit or loss actually affects the person concerned, cannot ever be a valid justification for a court in either granting or denying the claim raised on E these counts. The rejection of the claim of the appellants by the High Court, merely on account of the belief that the carry home pension for employees who would retire after 1.6.1988, would be trivially lower than those retiring prior thereto, amounts to bagging the issue pressed F before the High Court. In the instant case, in a given situation, an employee retiring on or after 1.6.1988 could suffer a substantial loss, in comparison to an employee retiring before 1.6.1988. Therefore, the High Court erred while determining the issue projected before it. [Para 26] G [910-B-F] 2. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. Article 16 of the Constitution permits a valid classification. A valid classification is based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes H the choice of some for differential consideration/ KALLAKKURICHI TALUK RETD. OFF. ASSO., TAMILNADU, 885 ETC. v. STATE OF TAMILNADU treatment, over others. A classification to be valid must A necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective. And secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. Legalistically, the test B for a valid classification may be summarized as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Whenever a cut- off date is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for c favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid. classification (or valid discrimination) must necessarily be satisfied. Any classification without reference to the object sought to be achieved, would be arbitrary and violative of the protection afforded under 0 Article 14 of the Constitution of Indi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.