THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS versus SMT. ANJANA BHATTACHARJEE & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 24-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.
v.
SMT. ANJANA BHATTACHARJEE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5114 of 2022)
AUGUST 24, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 –
rule 3(3) – Constitution of India – Art. 14 – Writ Petition was filed
before the High Court challenging the Rule 3(3) of Pension Rules,
2009 – Rule 3(3) provides “the revised rate of pension within the
above limits of minimum and maximum pension shall be computed
notionally from 1st January 2006 or, as the case may be, from the
date of superannuation…but financial computation will be
admissible from 1st January 2009…” - It was the case on behalf of
the writ petitioner that there is no reasonable excuse to deny the
actual benefit of pension for the period from 01.01.2006 to
31.12.2008 – The High Court has struck down Rule 3(3) of the
Pension Rules, 2009 being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India – Before the High Court, it was the specific
case on behalf of the State that because of heavy financial burden
and there being financial constraints, the State is not in a position
to bear the heavy burden of additional revised pension – On appeal,
held: When specific statistics were provided before the High Court
justifying its policy decision and the financial crunch/financial
constraint was pleaded, there was no reason for the High Court to
doubt the same – Financial constraint can be a valid ground for
fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefit of increased quantum of
death-cum-retirement gratuity – Fixing of a cut-off date for granting
of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as
the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational
consideration – In the instant case, the cut-off date has been fixed
as 01.01.2009 on a very valid ground i.e., financial constraint –
Therefore, the High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule
3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009 being arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
[2022] 11 S.C.R. 14
14
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
15
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009 has been
struck down by the High Court by holding that the same is arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Before the
High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the State that
because of heavy financial burden and there being financial
constraints, the State is not in a position to bear the heavy burden
of additional revised pension and therefore, the State formulated
a policy decision to the effect that the revised pension shall be
paid from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 notionally and actual revision
of pension shall be disbursed from 01.01.2009 only. A detailed
affidavit was filed on behalf of the State justifying the above policy
decision providing/granting the revision of pay from 01.01.2009
only and to grant the benefit of revised pension notionally from
01.01.2006 or from the date of retirement till 31.12.2008.
However, without giving any cogent reasons, the High Court has
observed that the foundation i.e., the financial crunch has not
satisfied the Court at all when specific statistics were provided
before the High Court justifying its policy decision and the financial
crunch/financial constraint was pleaded, there was no reason for
the High Court to doubt the same. As such the findings recorded
by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order is contrary
to the averments made in affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government. From the affidavit filed before the High Court
reproduced hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that a conscious
policy decision was taken by the State Government to grant the
benefit of revision of pension notionally from 01.01.2006 or from
the date of superannuation till 31.12.2008 and to pay/grant the
benefit of revision of pension actually from 01.01.2009, which was
based on their financial crunch/financial constraint. Whether the
financial crunch/financial constraint due to additional financial
burden can be a valid ground to fix a cut-off date for the purpose
of granting the actual benefit of revision of pension/pay has been
dealt with and/or considered by this Court in the case of Amar
Nath Goyal. In the aforesaid decision, it is observed and held by
this Court that financial constraint can be a valid ground for fixation
of cut-off date for grant of benefit of increased qua
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.