LexSTATE GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION & OTHERS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' A STATE GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION & OTHERS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH B •, --,! JULY 25, 1986 t [M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] ~- Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980-Part 11 and G. 0. c ~ No. 88 dated 26.3.80-Applicabi/ity of-Payment of gratuity at revised rates to pensioners retired prior to 1.4. 78-Whether admissible. The Government Order No. 88 dated 26th March, 1980 provided ~- that retirement gratuity may he 1/3rd of pay drawn at the time of retirement for every 6 monthly service subject to maximum of 20 D months pay limited to Rs .30,000. This order in so far as gratuity is concerned is made effective from 1st April, 1978. The petitioners, erstwhile Government employees who had re- tired "before" April 1, 1978, filed petition under Article 226in the High Court, contending that gratuity is a part and parcel of the pensionary E J.. benefits and the same cannot be looked separately from the other pen- sionary reliefs and therefore, they are also entitled to the benefit of gratuity retrospectively at the enhanced rate though they had retired before April 1, 1978 and had been paid gratuity at the then prevailing rate. ~ On behalf of the State the petition was contested and it was con- F tended that gratuity is something different from the other pensionary benefits like pension and family pension, which are continuing ones. t The gratuity that accrued ·to the petitioners prior to 1.4.1978 was calculated on the then existing Rules and paid, and the pensioners who retired prior to 1.4.1978 form themselves into a distinct class for purposes of the payment of benefit of gratuity from the others who G retired after 1.4.1978, the date from which, the revised pension rules are made applicable by the Government. --\ The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the upward revision of gratuity takes effect from the specified date (April I, 1978) .. " with prospective effect. H 383 A B c D E F G H 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the Pensioners' Associa- tion this Court, HELD: 1. The upward revi'iion of gratuity takes effect from the specified date (April I, 1978) with 'prospective' effect. The High Court has rightly understood and correctly awlied the principle propounded hy this Court in Nakara's case, wherein it was held that no arrears are required to be paid because to that extent the scheme is prospective. [388B-C] V.P. Gautama, L4S Retd. v. Union of India (S.L.J. 1984(1) 120), and M. P. Tandon v. State of UP., [ 1984] Lab. I.C. 677, referred to. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (A.I.R. 1983 SC 130), relied upon. 2. There is no illegality or unconstitutionality involved in provid- ing for prospective operation from the specified date. Even if that part of the Notification which provides for enforcement with effect from the specified date is struck down the provision can but have prospective operation-not retrospective operation. In that event it will operate only prospectively with effect from the date of issuance of the notifica- tion since it does not retrospectively apply to all those who had already retired before the said date. [388C-E] 3. In order to make the mtification retrospective so that it applies to all those who had retired after the commencement of the Constitution on 26 January, 1950 and before the date of issuance of the notification on 26 March 1980, the Court will have to re-write the Notification and introduce a provision to this effect saying in express terms that it shall operate retrospectively. Merely striking down or effecing the alleged offending portion whereby it is made effective from the specified date will not do. And this, the Court ca1D1ot do. Besides, giving prospective operation to such payments cannot by any stretch of imagination be condemned as offending Article 14. [388D-F] 4. Those who were in employment say in 1950, 1960 or 1970, lived, spent, and saved, on the basi'i.ofthe then prevailing cost of living structure and pay-scale structure, cannot Invoke Article 14 in order to claim the higher pay-scale brought into force say, in 1980. If upward pay revision cannot be made prospectively on account of Article 14, perhaps no such revision would ever be made. Similar is the case with regard to gratuity which has already been paid to the petitioners on the then prevailing basis as it obtained at the time of their respectiv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.