UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus V.D. DUBEY (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 08-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 279 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
V.D. DUBEY (DEAD) BY LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 523 of 2005) 
DECEMBER 8, 2009 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
Pension - Superannuation pension - Indian Railway c 
Establishment Code- r.2423A, as amended, rlw r.2301 of the 
Railway 
Pension 
Rules 
-Qualifying 
service 
for 
superannuation pension - Benefit of added years of service 
u/r. 2423A, as amended - Held: Intended to be given to all 
those officers who retired from service after 31-3-1960 -
D 
\ Persons who retired from service after 31-3-1960 form a class 
by themselves irrespective of their entry in service - Further 
classification or differentiation among them was never 
intended by r.2423-A. 
Whether r.2423-A of the Indian Railway Establishment E 
Code as amended, which provides for adding certain 
period of service, to the qualifying service for 
superannuation pension, would be available to those 
-'- who retire from service after 31st March, 1960, 
irrespective of the fact whether the recruitment rules at 
F 
the time of their appointment had contained such a 
specific provision or not, is the question which arose for 
consideration in the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Looking at the various amendments 
effected to r.2423-A of the Indian Railway Establishment 
Code, it is clear that the benefit of adding certain years 
of service under Rule 2423-A is intended to be given to 
G 
279 
H 
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A all those officers who retire from service after 31st March, 
.... 
1960 which is more clear in view of r.2301 of the Railway 
Pension Rules which says a pensionable Railway 
servant's claim to pension is regulated by Rules in force 
at the time when he resigns or discharged from the 
B service. [Para 10) [285-D-E] 
1.2. Persons who retire from service after 31.3.1960 
form a class by themselves irrespective of their entry in 
service. Further classification or differentiation among 
.-1 
them was never intended by r.2423-A as amended from 
C time to time read with r.2301 of the Railway Pension 
Rules. R.2423-A IREC, as amended, therefore would apply 
to those categories of employees who have retired from 
service after 31.3.1960 for adding requisite number of 
years to their qualifying service, so as to claim the 
D pensionary benefits. The scope of the proviso of r.2423-
A of REM Vol. II came up for consideration before this J 
Court in another case and this Court held that the 
amendment introducing the proviso cannot have 
retrospective effect in respect of person already in service 
E but would be prospective; it would be applicable only to 
those candidates appointed after the date of the 
amendment introducing the proviso. Therefore the 
provision which states that the concession be 
admissible only if the recruitment rule provides so, would 
F operate only prospectively. [Para 11) [285-F-H; 286-A] 
Secretary (Estt) Railway Board and Another v. D. Francis 
Paul and others (1996) 10 SCC 134, referred to. 
2. Directions are therefore issued to tne Appellants 
G to calculate the pensionary benefits and disburse the 
same to the respondents-employees. [Para 12) [286-C) 
Case Law Reference: 
H 
(1996) 10 sec 134 
referred to 
Para 11 
_, 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. V.D. DUBEY (DEAD) 281 
BY LRS. 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 523 
A 
of 2005. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 14.7.2003 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4282 of 
2003. 
WITH 
.._c.A. Nos. 1024 & 1025 of 2005. 
B 
Indira Jaising, ASG, Kiran Bhardwaj, S. Wasim A. Qadri, 
C 
C.K. Sharma, A.K. Sharma, Saima Bakshi, R. Bastian, 
Shreekant N. Terdal for the Appellants. 
Shiv Mangal Sharma, Jayesh Gaurab, Abhishek Thakur, 
Sharmila Upadhyay, Sanjay Parikh, Palani A, AN. Singh, AR. 
Shah, Anitha Shenoy for the Respondents. 
D 
} 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The question that arises 
for consideration in these cases is whether the Rule 2423-A 
E 
of the Indian Railway Establishment Code as amended, which 
provides for adding certain period of service, to the qualifying 
service for superannuation pension, would be available to those 
who retire from service after 31st March, 1960, irrespective of 
)he fact whether the recruitment rules at the time of their 
appointment had contained such a specific provision or not. 
F 
2. The Railway Administra

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