UNION OF INDIA AND ORS versus G. VASUDEVAN PILLAY AND ORS. ETC. ETC .

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 08-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 
A 
v. 
G. VASUDEVAN PILLAY AND ORS. ETC. ETC . 
DECEMBER 8, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 
Ex-Servicemen-Re-employment in civil post-Decision of Union of 
India not to allow Dearness Relief to them-Validity of-Denial of 
Dearness Relief on family pension on employment of dependents like C 
widows of ex-servicemen-Whether justified-Reduction of pay equivalent 
to enhanced pension of re-employed ex-servicemen holding civil posts on 
1.1.1986-Held: Arbitrary and void 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14, 16-Ex-Servicemen on re-employment-Fixation of pay-
Decision of Union of India-Reduction of pay equivalent to enhanced 
pension of ex-servicemen holding civil posts on 1.1.1986-Held: 
classificaiton arbitarary and violative of 
D 
In these appeals by special leave, the questions that arose for · E 
consideration were: 
(1) Whethere the decision ·or the Union of India not to allow 
Dearness Relief (D.R.) on pension to the ex-servicemen on their re-
employment in a civil post is in accordance with law or not; 
(2) Whether denial of D.R. on family pension on employment of 
dependents like widows of the ex-servicemen is justified or not; and 
(3) reduction of pay equivalent to enhanced pension of those ex-
servicemen who were holding civil posts on 1. 1. 86 following their re-
F 
employment, is permissible or not. 
G 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that in view of what 
has been stated in clause (ii) of Rule 55-A of the Central Civil Services 
(Pension)Rules, 1972, as amended in 1991, no dearness relief would be 
permissible on the pension/family pension to the ex-servicemen on their 
~~p~m~ 
H 
405 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
Alternatively it was contended that there were army instructions 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
which read with office Memorandum of Ministry of Finance would 
show that dearness relief on pension could not be paid even to ex-
servicemen on their re-empoyment. 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD: 1. The ex-servicemen were rightly debarred from Dearness 
Relief on their pensions after they got themselves re-employed to any 
civil post under.the Government oflndia. (410 E) 
2. Apart form what has been laid down in clause (ii) of Rule 55-A 
of the Central Civil Services (Pensions) Rules, 1972 there are materials 
on record to show that any person, including ex-servicemen, would not 
be entitled to Dearness Relief on pension on his re-employment to any 
department/office of the Central Government. [409 G] 
3. Even if Dearnes Relief be an integral part of pension, there is no 
legal inhibition in dis-allowing the same in cases of those pensioners 
who get themselves re-employed after retirement. This catetgory of 
pensioners can rightfully be treated differently from those who do not 
get re-employed; and in the case of the re-employed pensioners it would 
be permissible in law to deny Dearness Relief on pension inasmuch as 
the salary to be paid to them on re-employment takes care of erosion in 
the value of the money because of rise in prices which lay at the back of 
grant of D.R., as they get Dearness Allowance on their pay which 
allowance is not avaibale to those who do not get re-employed. 
(410 C, DJ 
4. In some of the cases, there has been denial .of Dearness Relief on 
family pension on employment of dependents like widows of the ex-
servicemen. This has to be sustained in view of what has been stated 
above regarding denial of D.R. on pension on re-employment inasmuch 
as the official documents referred on that point also mention about 
· denial of D.R. on family pension on employment. The rationale is 
getting of Dearness Allowance by the dependents on their pay, which is 
drawn following employment, because of which Dearness Relief on 
family pension can justly be denied as has been rightly done. [410 F, G] 
5. There is no logic and basis for classifying the re-employed 
persons on the basis of their being on employment on 1.1.86. The 
decision which held the field before the impugned Memorandum is not 
taking note of pension while fixing pay of the ex-servicemen on re-
H. emplyment, which was based on good reasons, had no good reason for 
U.0.1. v. G. V. PILLA Y [HANSARIA, J.] 
407 
its reversal, as enhanced pension was not confined to those who were in A 
employment on 1.1.86. The impugned decision is, therefore, arbitrary 
and is hit by Articles 14
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.