KRISHENA KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 13-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KRISHENA KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
ruLY 13, 1990 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ., B.C. RAY, M.H. KANIA, 
c 
K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 141-Policy of courts is to 
stand by precedent and not disturb settled point. 
Civil Services: Railway Board Circular dated May 8, 1987-
Change over of railway employees from SRPF (Contributory Scheme) 
to Pension Scheme-Uth option-Exercise of-Para 3.1-Whether 
constitutionally valid. 
The petitioners are retired railway employees who were covered 
D 
by the Railway Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The Provident 
Fund Scheme was replaced in the year 1957 by the Pension Scheme. The 
employees who entered Railway service on or after 1.4.1957 were auto-
matically covered by the Pension Scheme instead of the Provident Fund 
Scheme. The employees who were already in service on 1.4.1957 were 
given an option either to retain the Provident Fund benefits or to switch 
E 
over to the pensiooary benefits. The petitioners had opted for Con-
tributory Provident Fund Scheme. 
The petitioners' case is that till 1.4.1957 or even sometime there-
after, the pensionary benefits and the alternative Contributory Provi-
dent Fund benefits were considered to be more or less equally beoefi-
F 
cial; at the time when the option was given to choose between pension 
and Provident Fund, the employees had no idea that in future improve-
ments would be made to either of them; and that as a result of the 
decision of the Railways to implement the judgment of this Court in 
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165, and to extend the 
liberalised pension benefits even to those railway employees who had 
G 
retired long before the liberalisations of pension were introduced, the 
pension retirees derived manifOld benefits while P.F. retirees' benefits 
remained stagnant. 
The main legal contention of the petitioners is that the Railways 
bad issued twelve notifications giving option to certain Provident Fund 
H 
retirees after the respective cut-off dates, to opt for the Pension Scheme 
352 
•'"'\ 
-
-·~ 
KRISHENA KUMAR v. U.0.I. 
353 
even after their retirement, but the same options were not given to other 
similarly situated Provident Fund retirees beyond the respective cut-off 
dates, which was discriminatory and hence violative of Art. 14 of the 
Constitution. It is further contended that the notifications specifying 
cut-off dates were arbitrary and on-related to the objects sought to be 
achieved by giving of the option, and therefore violative of Article 14 
and also of the principle laid down in Nakara's case. According to 
counsel, the principle is that pension retirees could not be divided by 
such arbitrary cut-off dates for the purpose of giving benefits to some 
and not to other similarly situated employees. It is submitted that by 
analogy the principle is equally applicable to the Provident Fund 
retirees as a class. 
On these grounds, it is prayed that applying the law laid down in 
Nakara's case this Court should simply strike down or read down 
paragraph 3.1 of the 12th option dated 8.5.1987. That paragraph said 
that all Contributory Provident Fund beneficiaries who were in service 
on 1.1.86 and who were still in service on the date of the order would be 
deemed to have come over to the pension scheme. It is ~ubmitted that 
once this limiting requirement is removed all the Contributory Provi-
dent Fund beneficiaries shall be eligible and will be deemed to have 
come over to the pension scheme. As the basis for striking or reading 
down paragraph 3.1 on Nakara's ratio, it is urged that all the Railway 
employees both in service and pensioners constitute one family and 
must be treated as one class, and Government's obligation to look after 
the retired Railway employees both under the pension scheme and the 
provident fund scheme being the same, they could not be treated diffe-
rently, and any differential treatment will be discriminatory and viola-
tive of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia. In Nakara's case the date 
arbitrarily chosen was struck down and, as a result, the revised formula 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
for computing pension was made applicable to all the retired pensioners. 
F , 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the options 
were meant to give the Provident Fund retirees after the specified dates 
option to switch over to Pension Scheme and that each specified date 
had nexus with the rea

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