SALABUDDIN MOHAMED YUNUS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 28-09-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
930 
SALABUDDIN MOHAMED YUNUS 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
September 28, 1984 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., D. P. MADON AND 
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J 
Constitution of lodia 1950, Articles 19 (/) (/), 19 (5), 31 
Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations Rt1/e 299 (!) (b) and State Government 
Notification dated February 3, 1971 
Pension-Right to-A fundamental right-Whether could be curtailed or taken 
away by the State by an executive order. 
The appellant was employed in the service of the former Indian State of 
Hyderabad prior to the coming into force of the Constitution of India. On the 
coming into force of the Constitution of India, the said State became a part of 
the territory of India as a Part B State and the Appellant continued in the 
service of that State, till he retired from service on January 21, 1956. The 
appellant claimed that he was entitled to be paid the salary of a High Court 
Judge from October l, 1947 and also claimed that he was entitled to receive a 
pension of Rs. 1, 000 a month in the Government of India currency being the 
maximum pension admissible under the rules. Both the aforesaid claims were 
negatived by the Government. 
The Appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court against the 
Re&pondent-State of Andhra Pradesh, which was the principal successor State 
to the erstwhile State, which was contested under Regulation 6 of the Hydera-
bad Civil Service Regulations which were applicable in the case of the Appellant 
and that claim to pension was to be regulated by the rules in force at the time 
when the Government servant retired from the service of the Government. Under 
clause (b) of Regulation 313, the maximum pension ordinarily admissible for 
superior service to which the Appellant belonged was to be Osmania Sikka 
Rs. 1,000 a. month. The Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations were replaced 
with effect from October 1, 1954 by the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules and 
under clause (b) of Rule 299 (which later became clau...;;;c (b) of sub·rule (1) of 
Rule 299) the ma;\imum pension ordinarily admissible for superior service wa~ 
to b~ Rs. 1,000 a month, 
\ 
&.M. YUNUS v. ANDHRA PRADESH 
931 
During the pendcncy of the writ petition, the Government by a Notification 
dated February 3, 1971 amended clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 299, with 
retrospective effect from October l, 1954. The expression 'Rs. 1,000 a month 
in the said clause (b) was substituted by the expression 'Rs. 857.15 a month''. 
This amendment was made in exercise of Lhe powers conferred by the proviso 
to Article 309 read with Article 313 of the Constitution of India. 
The Single Judge who heard t11e Appellant's writ petition rejected the claim 
made by the Appellant with respect to salary on the ground that the said clain1 
had been negatived by the Government as far back as 1955 and mere:y by 
making representations to the Go,•ernment he could not keep the said claim 
alive. He however held that in 1tiew of the judgment of this Court in Deoki-
nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others [1971] Supp. S.C.R 634 the right to 
receive pension was property and was a· fundamental right and that it had 
accrued to the Appellant on the date when he retired and could not be affected 
by a rule made subsequently under the proviso to Article 309, and allowed the 
writ petition to the e.<:tent that the Appellant was entitled to get his future pen-
sion at the rate of Rs. 1,000 a month in the Government of India currency from 
the date of filing of the said writ petition and arrears of pension at the same 
rate for a period of three years prior to the filing of the said writ petition. 
The Respondent-State filed a Letters Patent Appeal, and the Division 
Bench held that this Court in Deokinandan Prasad's case did not hold that a 
pensioner was entitled to any pension that he demanded but all that was done 
in the said case was to direct the State to consider properly the claim of the 
pensioner for payment of pension according to law, and relying upon its 
earlier decisions in State of A11dhra Pradesh v. Ah"zed H:1ssain Khan and State 
A 
B 
c 
D 
of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Gopalan upholding the validity of the amendment made 
E 
in clause (b) of Rule 299 (l) by the Notification dated February 3, 1971, allowed 
the appeal and dismi-;.se j the writ petition of the appellant. 
Allowing the Appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The relevance placed by the Division Bench upon its earlier deci-
sion in the two 

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