THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE & PLANNING DEPARTMENT versus A.P. PENSIONERS SAMAJ AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 31-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Directions issued

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

·.)
!
~f-
'(
-·
THE PRINCIPAL SECRET ARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE &
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
v.
A.P. PENSIONERS SAMAJ AND ORS.
JANUARY 31, 2007
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pension-Revision of-Cut off date-Enhancement of pension from a
specified date-Refixation of pension-Whether to be effective from the
specified date or from the earlier date from which the pensioner was getting
the pension-Whether any formal amendment to A.P. Revised Pension Rules,
1980 was necessary consequent to issuance of A.P. G.O.Ms. No. 87, Finance
dated 25.5.1998, if the retired employees wanted to get benefit of the said
G.0.-There being conflict in decisions, matter referred to larger Bench-
A.P. Revised Pension Rules, I 980-G. 0. Ms: No. 87, Finance dated 2 5. 5. 1998.
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1SCC305; V. Kasturiv. Managing
Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and Anr., (1998) 8 SCC 30; T.N
Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 414; and State of
West Bengal and Anr. v. West Bengal Govt. Pensioners' Associations and Ors.,
(2002) 2 sec 179, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5367-5368 of
2005.
From the Final Common Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2003 of the
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. Nos.16719
and 18490/2003.
H.S. Guru Raja Rao, D. Bharathi Reddy, P. Vinay Kumar and Sneha
Bhaskaran for the Appellant.
R. Sundaravaradan, R.N. Keshw!ll)i, Ramlal Roy, Chava Badri Nath Basu,
· C.M. Angadi, K.P. Singh and Bimal Roy Jad for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
37
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 2 S. C.R.
A
These appeals have been filed .against the impugned judgment dated
23.12.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 16719 and
18490of2003.
The respondents in this appeal had filed O.As before the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the State Government
B to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms. No.87, Finance & Planning (FW.Pen. I)
Department, dated 25.5.1998 to all the pensioners irrespective of their date of
retirement and also to compensate the loss sustained by the applicants. It
was contended therein that the pension was calculated on the basis of ten
months average pay and the petitioners have been getting the said pension
C ever since the date of their retirement. However, the Government issued
G.0.Ms. No.87 dated 25.5.1998 revising the fixation of pension on the basis
of the last drawn pay treating it as emoluments for the purpose of pension.
Hence, it was contended that their pensions had to be re-fixed in terms of
G.0.Ms. No.87 dated 25.5.1998 and the same should be released from the date
of their respective retirements. The Tribunal by its order held that though
D the pensioners are entitled for re-fixation of their pension in terms of G.O.
Ms.No.87 dated 25.5 .1998 they were not eligible for any arrears that accrued
prior to 25.5.1998. The said order was challenged by the State Government
in the Writ Petitions.
The State Government contended that the revised fixation of pension
E on the basis of last drawn pay was applicable to those pensioners who retired
on or after 25.5.1998 and it cannot be made applicable to the persons who
retired prior to that date and that the Government has power to fix a cut off
date, which cannot be interfered with by the Court. Learned counsel for the
State Government referred to several decisions of this Court in support of his·
p contention.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the State Government and
held that the pensioners who were already drawing the pensions cannot be
denied the revision of pension on the basis of the revised formula. Thus, the
High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal, including the direction that the
G pensioners cannot claim any arrears from a date anterior date to the G.O.
25.5.1998. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
various decisions cited before us.
H
A Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,
'•
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE & PLANNING DEPARTMENT v. A.P. PENSIONERS SAMAJ 39
[1983) 1 sec 305 has held that the employees who retired before coming into A
operation of a pension scheme were also entitled to the benefit of the said
pension scheme.
However in V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Ba

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