UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SPS VAINS (RETD.) AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 09-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

f 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 257 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SPS VAINS (RETD.) AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.5566 of 2008) 
~ 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
'1 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 14 - Disparity in payment of pension to officers c 
of same rank, who had retired prior to introduction of revised 
pay scale with those who retired thereafter- Held: Is arbitrary 
and violative of Art. 14 - Service Law - Cut off date for creating 
class of pensioner within same cadre. 
~ 
The question which arose for consideration in the D 
~ 
present appeal is whether the officers of the rank of Major 
'I 
General in the army and of equivalent rank in the two 
other wings of the Defence forces, who had retired prior 
to 1.1.1996, have been validly excluded from the benefit 
of the revision of pay scales in keeping with the E 
recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission 
by virtue of Special Army Instruction 2(5) 98. 
Dismissing the appeal with certain directions, the 
-.. 
Court 
.... 
F 
' 
HELD: 1. The problem of disparity is created within 
! 
-l 
the same class, so that two officers both retiring as Major 
-\ 
Generals, one prior to 1.1.1996 and the other after 1.1.1996, 
would get tw,o different amounts of pension. In such 
situation, the officers who retired prior to 1.1.1996 would 
get the same pension as payable to a Brigadier on account G 
of the stepping up of pension in keeping with the 
.. 
Fundamental Rules and the other set of Major Generals 
who retired after 1.1.1996 would get a higher amount of 
pension since they would be entitled to the benefit of the 
257 
H 
258 
SUPRa11E COURT REPORTS 
[2028! 13 S.CR 
A revision of pay scales after 1.1.1996. It would be arbitrary 
to allow such a situation to continue since the same offends 
the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 of 
the Constitution is wholly violated, inasmuch as, the 
Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended 
8 Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and 
discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of 
commutation of pension. It would thus have a traumatic 
effect on those who retired just before that date. The 
division which classified pensioners into two classes is 
C artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational 
principle. It could also not be the intention of the authorities 
to equate the pension payable to officers of two different 
ranks by resorting to the step up principle envisaged in 
the Fundamental Rules in a manner where the other officers 
0 
belonging to the same cadre would be receiving a higher 
pension. [Para 24-26, 30] [266 C-H 267 A-8,H 268-A] 
D.S. Nakara and Ors. v Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 
305 - relied on. 
R. Viswan and Ors. v Union of India and Ors. (1983) 3 
E SCC 401 - referred to. 
2. The respondent is directed to notionally fix the 
pay of all pensioners in the rank of Major General and its 
equivalent rank in the two other Wings of the Defence 
F Services at the rate given to similar officers of the same 
rank after the revision of pay scales with effect from 
1.1.1996, and to compute their pensionary benefits on 
such basis with prospective effect from the date of filing 
of the writ petition and pay them the difference within 
G three months from date with interest at 10% per annum. 
[Para 31] [268 8-D] 
Case Law Reference 
(1983) 1 sec 305 
relied on 
H 
(1983) 3 sec 40·1 
referred to 
Para ·JS 
Para 21 
i 
Ui'-!ION OF !NOIA & ANR. v. SPS VAINS (RETD.) 
259 
& ORS. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5566 
A 
of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.5.2005 of 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. 
No. 17233 of 2001 
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., S.P. Singh, Nidhesh Gupta, P.N. 
Lekhi, Ashok K. Srivastava, Shiva Lakshmi, Udita Singh, B.K. 
Prasad, Anil Katiyar, Tarun Gupta, S. Janani, Sameer Bansal, 
Lokesh Kumar and M.K. Garg for the appearing parties. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2006 filed by Major 
General S.C. Suri (Retd.) and 67 others similarly placed as the 
respondents is allowed. 
D 
3. Only a very limited issue falls for our .consideration in 
this appeal which has been filed by the Union of India through 
the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and the Chief of Army Staff 
through the Adjudant General Army Headquarters, New Delhi, 
E 
against the judgment and order of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.