LexSTATE OF U.P. versus U.P. UNIVERSITY COLLEGES PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF U.P. v. U.P. UNIVERSITY COLLEGES PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION FEBRUARY 2S, 1994 fK. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Se1Vice Law : Pension-Teachers of aided Degree Colleges in State of U.P.-Retiring at age of 6(}-Heid, teachers concemed would be entitled to pension on the basis of last pay drawn by them on attaining age of 60 years--Bcnefit o/gratuity would not be available to them. Commutation of Pension-Held can be resorted to before one retires and not afterwards. Constitution of lndia--Articles366(17}-''Pension"-fleld pension and A B c gratllity cannot be said to be conceptual~v same. D The appellant-State, by Government Order (G.0.) dated 24.8.1980, formulated a new scheme of pension and provident fund for teacliers of aided Degree Colleges. Option was given to the teachers either to reiire at the age of 60 years with facility of pension, short of gratuity, at the last pay E drawn on completion of 58 years and general provident fund, or to retire at 58 years of age with the facility of death-cum-retirement gratuity as also family pension, besides the two benefits available under the first package. Most of the teachers opted for the first package. When they were denied gratuity and their pension was computed by taking the last pay drawn on completion of 58 years even though they continued in service till comple- F ti on of 60 years, the respondent-Association filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the G.O. as being discriminatory on the ground that the similarly situated teachers in Government colleges were better off in this regard and there was no reason to treat them differently. Benefits of gratuity and pension on the last emoluments drawn on completion of G 60 years were claimed. In respect of the teachers who retired prior to 14.8.1988, benefit of commutation of pension w.e.f. 14.8.1988 was also claimed on the basis of G.0. dated 19.12.1988. The High Court allowed the writ petition. In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant- H 171 172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 2 S.C.R. A S. lie that teachers of aided colleges, whose retirement age w:is 60 years, I - co tld not be placed in a better .~itu11tlon than those in Government Co!leges as they retire at the age of 58 and get pensionary benefits accordingly; there being a difference in the retirement age of the two categories of the teachers, they could not be said to be similarly situated; B the teachers concerned, having opted for the first package available under the G.O., could not resile from its terms; and benefit of commutation or pension to teachers who retired prior to 14.8.1988 could not be granted as the same could be made available only before one's retirement. On behalf of the respondent-Association, it was cqnteneded that for c the purpose or computation or pension the teachers of aided Degree Colleges should not be treated dill'e1ocntly than those of aided Higher Secondary Schools who also retire at the age or 60 and in whose ease pension is calculated on the basis of last pay drawn at the age or 60 years. D Disposing or the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. In principle there cannot be any objection in computing • the pension on the basis of last pay <lrawn at the age of 58 years. Demand of the Association being basically grounded on the better pensionary benefit available to Go·;ernment tea.:hers, the State was amply justified, E while considering the question of liheralising the pension qua the aided teachers, to peg the computation of pension with reference to the pay at the age of 58 years, which is the retirement age of Government teachers. This apart, as to how much of liberalisation should have been conceded is a matter of policy .and if the Govern< mt decided to go as far as visualised by the G.O. of 24.8.1980, it is not open to any court to interfere with the F same, as the policy contained in the G.O. cannot be said to be either unreasonable or against public interest, which are the only two grounds available to a court to interfere with a policy matter while reviewing the same judicially. [176-A-C] G 1.2. But there is no rational basis to treat teachers of aided higher secondary schools and teachers of aided colleges differently as the former also retire at the age of 60 years. So, when the pension payable to them is being calculated on the basis of last pay drawn by them at the age of 60 ~· years, the same would
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.