STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SEVANIVATRA KARAMCHARI HITKARI SAMITI

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 03-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
SEV ANIV ATRA KARAM CHARI HITKARI SAMIT! 
JANUARY 3, 1995 
[P.B. SWANT AND G.N. RAY, JJ.) 
Constitution of India-:-Artilce 14-Service Law-Rajasthan Service 
Rules 1951-Rules 261 and 268-H, Chapters XXIII and XX/II-A-Family 
pension-Cut off date-Rules providing for f amity pension for dependants of 
C government servants-Liberalised optional scheme introduced by amendment 
in 1964-0ption available to government servants who were in service on, or 
would enter after, 29 Febmary, 1964-Liberalised scheme extended to all de-
pendents from April 1, 1988-Whether cut off date, which restricted the 
categories of pensioners till April 1, 1988, discriminatory and violative of 
D Article 14-Whether such mle conflicts with the principle in Nakara-Held, it 
is permissible to introduce different retiral benefit schemes on the basis of 
date of retirement-The mle is not violative of Article 14-A new retiral benefit, 
where the State has prescribed a date in a reasonable manner, would not be 
contrary to Nakara-However, State Government asked to sympathetically 
consider antedating the benefits under the mle. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Judicial Review-Justiciability of public policy-Wisdom of policy 
decision of government not justiciable unless it is wholly capricious, arbitrary 
and whimsical or it off ends any statutory provisions or the provisions of the 
Constitution-Constitution of India, Article 14-Rajasthan Service Rules, 
1951, Rule 268-H. 
The Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 provided for grant of family 
pension to the family of an officer who dies, whether he is still in service 
or has retired, where he has completed the qualifying period of service. 
On March 1, 1964, the rules were amended and a new liberalised 
family pension scheme was introduced. The government servants were 
given the option to choose between the old and the new scheme. This was 
applicable to government servants who were in service on, or would enter 
after, February 29, 1964. 
In 1965 and 1978, the benefits under the old scheme were enlarged, 
8 
STATE OF RAJ. v. S.K. HITKARI SAMITI 
9 
and on April 1, 1988, the scheme introduced in 1964 was extended to A 
widows of government servants even where they retired or died before 
March 1, 1964 as also to those who had opted for the old scheme. 
Subsequently, the respondent, an unregistered association of retired 
employees of the Government of Rajasthan, moved the High Court in a 
writ petition contending, inter alia, that the cut of date of February 29, 1964 
was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; that it 
was in conflict with the decision in Nakara v. Union of India, AIR (1983) 
SC 130; and that the impugned expression prescribing the cut off date in 
Rule 268-H being severable, it should be struck down. The High Court 
upheld the challenge. 
Before this Court it was contended for the appellant-State that 
Nakara does not apply where the cut off date relates to a new retiral benefit, 
as in this case. For the respondent it was urged that the government 
servant who was in service on February 29, 1964 and who retired or died 
B 
c 
-" 
before that date constituted the same class and that the cut off date was D 
discriminatory. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Rule 268-H of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is not E 
violative of the Constitution. It is permissible to introduce different retiral 
benefit schemes for government servants on the basis of the on the date of 
retirement. Government servants can be governed by different sets of 
retiral benefit rules with reference to their holding of office from a cut off 
date. [21-C-B] 
F 
2.1. As indicated in Krishena Kumar, Nakara was not concerned with 
a new scheme, but only the revision of an existing scheme; it was not a new 
retiral benefit but upward revision of an existing benefit. In Krishena 
Kumar's case a Constitution Bench upheld different sets of retiral benefits 
being date applicable to employees retiring prior to a specified date and G 
those retiring thereafter. The Court in that case indicated that any argu-
J./ 
ment to the contrary would mean that the government can never change 
the condition of service relating to retir~I benefits with effect from a 
particular date. [20-B-D] 
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR (1983) SC 130, explained and H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A distinguished. 
Klishena Kumar v. Union of India, [1990] 4 SCC 207, applied. 
Indian Ex-S

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