STATE OF WEST BENGAL ETC. ETC. versus RATAN BEHARI DEY AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 06-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ETC. ETC. 
v. 
RATAN BEHAR! DEY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 6, 1993 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
C01poration of Calcutta Employees (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit 
Regulations, 1982: 
C 
Chapter I, Regulation I-Pension scheme introduced with effect from 
April 1, 1977-Fixation of cut-off date-Whether arbitrmy and un-
reasonable-Scheme automatically made applicable to the employees reti1ing 
after publication of Regulations--Option given to employees who had retired 
on or after the cut-off date, but p1ior to date of publication of Regulation-Ex-
clusion of employees who had retired p1ior to the cut-off date-Whether 
D disoiminatory. 
. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 16-lntroduction of Pen-
sio~ Scheme for employees-Fixation of cut-ofI date-Whether arbitra1y and 
unreasonable-Classification of employees with reference to cut-off date-E.x-
E clusion of those who had retired plior to the cut-off date-While giving option 
to those who had retired on or after the cur-off date but p1ior t<' publication 
of Regulations introducing the Pension Scheme-Whether discliminat01y. 
Respondents 1 to 43 in the appeals retired from the service of the · 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation in the year 1967 or thereafter but prior 
F to April 1, 1977. On retirement, each of them was paid the provident fund 
and other terminal benefits payable to them in accordance with rules then 
in force. No pension was provided for by the rules or regulations then in 
force. Subsequently, on the basis of the recommendations of the Pay 
Commission which had been appointed by the State Government in March 
G 
1978, the Corporation of Calcutta Employees (Death-cum-Retirement) 
Benefit Regulations, 1982, were framed and published in the year 1982. Th~ 
·Regulations, which were given effect to from April 1, 1977, also provided 
for a Pension Scheme. The Regulations were antomatically made ap-
plicable to those who had retired after publication of the Regulations. 
However, an option was given to those who had retired on or after April 
H l, 1977, but prior tu the date of publication of the Regulations to come 
514 
STATE OF W.B. v. R.B. DEY 
under the Scheme. 
The respondents approached the High Court for issuance of a writ 
of mandamus applying the said Regulations to all those employees who 
retired even prior to April 1, 1977. Relying on the decision of this Court 
in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, (1983] 2 S.C.R. 165, the High Court 
granted the prayer, holding that all the retired employees of the Corpora-
tion constituted one single cla,.s and classi()ing them into two categories 
with reference to April 1, 1977 was neither reasonable nor was it in any 
manner related to the object of the Regulations. 
A 
B 
In the appeals, before this Court, the correctness of the decision of C 
the High Court was challenged by the State and the Corporation. It was 
submitted that the respondents, who had retired prior to April 1, 1977 and 
had drawn out the terminal benefits permissible to them, constituted a 
different class from those who retired after April 1, 1977 and were 
governed by Regulations; the appointment of the Pay Commission to 
examine the claim of the employee was ordered in the financial year D 
1977-78 and though the Commission submitted its report later and it was 
accepted after some time, the Government was justified in fixing the first 
day of the financial year 1977-78, as the date from which the said Regula-
tions were to be given effect to. 
On behalf of respondents if was submitted that the Regulations were 
not merely prospective; they were given retrospective effect on and from 
April 1, 1977; the employees, who retired on or after April 1, 1977 but prior 
to the date of publication of the Regulations were sitnated similarly to the 
respondents and all of them were governed by the Provident Fund Scheme, 
E 
but the Regulations created a rtistinction among them with reference to an F 
artificial date viz., April 1, 1977; and brought about discrimination between 
the similarly placed employees; and that a similar option, as had been 
b>iven t.o the employees retiring on or after April 1, 1977 but before the date 
of publication of the Regulations, ought to have been given to all those 
employees who retired prior to April 1, 1977. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is open to the State or the Corporation, as the case may 
be, to change the conditions of service unilateraly. 

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