Tripura High Court
Smt. Anjana Bhattacharjee vs The State Of Tripura on 31 October, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: Chief Justice, S. Talapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) 494 of 2012
Smt. Anjana Bhattacharjee,
wife of Shri Indrajit Chakraborty,
resident of West of Power House,
Banamalipur, Agartala, P.S. East
Agartala, District-West Tripura, PIN-
799001, retired Reader-cum-Vice
Principal, Womens College,
Government of Tripura, Agartala,
West Tripura
......... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government
of Tripura, Agartala, New Secretariat
Complex, P.O. Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex, District-
West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. The Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Government of Tripura, Agartala,
New Secretariat Complex, P.O.
Secretariat Complex, P.S. New
Capital Complex, District-West
Tripura, PIN-799010
3. The Director,
Department of Higher Education,
Government of Tripura, Old
Secretariat Complex, Akhaura Road,
P.S. West Agartala, PIN-799001
4. The Principal,
Women's College, Government of
Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-
799001
5. The Union of India,
represented by the Secretary, Human
Resource Development Department,
Government of India, New Delhi,
PIN-110001
[2]
6. The Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government
of Tripura, Agartala, New Secretariat
Complex, P.O. Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex, District-
West Tripura, PIN-799010
7. The Chairman,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi-
11002
8. The Principal,
Regional College of Physical
Education, Government of Tripura,
P.O. & P.S. Panisagar, District-North
Tripura,
9. The Principal,
Khowai Government Degree College,
renamed as Dasarath Deb Memorial
Degree College, Government of
Tripura, P.O. & P.S. Khowai, District-
Khowai, Tripura
10. The Principal,
Government Degree College,
Sabroom, renamed as Michael
Madhusudan Datta Degree College,
Government of Tripura, Sabroom,
P.O. & P.S. Sabroom, District-South
Tripura
........ Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA For the petitioner : Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, Sr. Advocate Ms. S. Chakraborty, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Das, Advocate General Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate Date of hearing : 04.08.2017 Date of delivery of Judgment & Order : 31.10.2017 Whether fit for reporting : YES NO √ W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 2 of 17 [3] JUDGMENT & ORDER (S. Talapatra, J) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who has retired from the substantive post of Reader after attaining superannuation on 28.02.2007 has challenged the constitutionality of Rules 1(2) and 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 to the extent of computing pension notionally from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008. The petitioner has further urged to this court for directing the respondents to pay the petitioner's arrear pay and allowances for the period from 01.01.2006 to 28.02.2007 and arrear pension from 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2008.
[2] There is no dispute that in terms of the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission [UGC in short], the Government of Tripura by its notification under No. F.4(11-4)-DHE/BGT/08(L-III) dated 02.02.2010, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, caused revision of pay scales of the Teachers in Government (General) Degree Colleges, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education [IASE], Tripura Government Law College, Sachin Debbarman Memorial Government Music College and Regional College of Physical Education with some modifications of the recommendations as made by the UGC. There is no challenge against the said notification dated 02.02.2010 but the amendment carried out by the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 has its roots in the said notification. In the said notification dated 02.02.2010, it has been provided that 'arrear of W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 3 of 17 [4] pay would be admissible for those teachers who were in position on 01.01.2006 and have been drawing pay in the UGC scale, subject to receipt of financial assistance covering 80% of the proposed expenditure. Arrear would be computed by taking Band Pay & Academic Grade as due and pre-revised Basic Pay, DP & DA as drawn. All other allowances as provided by the State Government for its employees would be admissible from 01.01.2009. 20% of the arrear would be impounded in the GPF for period upto March, 2011. Out of remaining arrear 40% would be paid during financial year 2009-10 and 60% would be paid during next financial year 2010-11.[Para-5.1]." It has been further provided that 'those teachers who were recruited in the Government Colleges under regular scale after 01.01.2006 will not be eligible for getting any arrear for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008. However, their arrear for the period-January, 09 to March, 09-would be impounded in the GPF and remaining arrear from 01.04.2009 onwards would be paid in cash. The restriction of impounding of portion of arrear in GPF would be withdrawn during year 2010- 2011.[Para-5.2]' Since the petitioner was substantively appointed as the College Teacher on 31.05.1989 as the Lecturer of Government Degree Colleges by the notification bearing No.194(11)-DHE/88(1-6) dated 31.05.1989, the Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 of the said notification dated 02.02.2010 cannot have any relevance in the context. The petitioner has challenged the withholding of the financial benefits of the said revision from 01.01.2006 to 28.02.2007 without challenging the validity of the W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 4 of 17 [5] said notification. The pension of the petitioner was fixed by the office of the Accountant General [A&E], Tripura vide Pension Payment Order No.PEN-1/TRIP/S/SUP/9590 dated 15.05.2007, Annexure-16 of the writ petition, at `9,150/- based on her last basic pay of `18,300/-. The said last pay was indisputably determined in the pre-revised scale for obvious reason as the notification revising the pay scale of the teachers in the Government Colleges was issued on 02.02.2010 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with certain conditions. After the pay was revised, the petitioner's pension was also revised at `26,850/- w.e.f. 01.01.2009 by the revised Pension Payment Order No.PEN-
1/TRIP/SUP/REV/7769/2009-10/42335-37 dated 25.05.2011 issued by the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura, in the revised pay scale of `37000-67000/- with Assured Grade Pay [AGP in short] of `9000/-. Further modification was made by the notification under No.F.4(11-4)-DHE/BGT/09(L-III) dated 28.12.2010 by enhancing the rate of increment in the revised pay structure from 2.5% to 3% by modifying the clause-8 of the said notification dated 02.02.2010. In the said notification dated 02.02.2010 a provision has been made for pension and retiral benefits for the College Teachers at clause-13 which reads as under:
"13. Pension & Retirement Benefits for College Teachers:
Pension and retirement benefits would be admissible for the College Teachers as per Pension Rules of the State Government amended from time to time raising the upper ceiling of pension from `25,000/- to `38,500/- for which necessary notification would be issued from Finance Department."W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 5 of 17 [6]
It has been further provided under Clause-14 of the said notification dated 02.02.2010 that the necessary amendment to the relevant rules and regulations etc. will be made by the appropriate authority, wherever called for.
[3] So far the upper ceiling of pension is concerned, there is also no challenge from the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the consequential amendment made by the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 2009 as published by the notification under No.F.6(1)- FIN(PC)/2008 dated 20.05.2010. By the said amendment rules with the existing Rule 3(2), the following sentences were added:
"In the cases of teachers of Degree level of Institutions enjoying UGC pay structure, the maximum limit of pension shall be Rs.38,500/- subject to fulfillment of other conditions of computation as per State Government Pension Rules and maximum limit of Family pension shall be 50% of maximum limit of pension i.e. Rs.19,250/- subject to fulfillment of other conditions of computation as per State Government Pension Rules."
[4] The said pension rules was again amended by the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2012 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2015 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. In Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 as amended, it is provided as under:
"3(3) 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/retirement whichever is later. But financial benefit according to this computation will be admissible from 1st January, 2009 or from the date of superannuation/retirement whichever is later."W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 6 of 17 [7]
This provision has fundamentally been challenged in this writ petition. Rule 3(1) of the said Rules provides the minimum pension/family pension at `2,865/- per month [50% of the minimum of the revised Pay Band `4,530/- plus Grade Pay `1,200/- whereas Rule 3(2) of the said rules provides the maximum pension at 50% of the maximum slab of the Apex revised pay [`50,400/-] i.e. `25,200/- and the maximum family pension at 50% of maximum limit of pension i.e. `12,600/-. This minimum and maximum pension as provided by the Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of the said rules have been referred for purpose of gathering the appropriate meaning of Rule 3(3) of the said Rules. Strangely enough, the petitioner has thrown a challenge against the Rules 1(2) of the said Rules which simply provides that save and otherwise provided, it shall be deemed to have come into force from 01.01.2006. However, since the petitioner has clearly stated that the purpose of challenge is to the extent of providing computation of pension notionally from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 [in the case of the petitioner, from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2008], this challenge has become inconsequential in view of the substantive challenge as made against Rule 3(3) of the said rules. Rule 1(2) of the said rules generally provides that the said Pension Rules would come w.e.f. 01.01.2006 save and otherwise provided thereafter. As such, if the challenge made against the Rule 3(3) of the said rules is determined, it would not affect the provisions of Rule 1(2) of the said rules and hence, this court would not further proceed for W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 7 of 17 [8] examining the constitutionality of the said Rule 1(2) of the said rules.
[5] Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while implementing the UGC recommendations for revision of pay scales for the college teachers of the Government Colleges of Tripura by the said notification dated 02.02.2010 it has been clearly ascribed that the Central Government shall provide the financial assistance to the extent of 80% of the additional expenditure that will be involved in the implementation of the revision. For purpose of reference, the following terms and conditions as provided in the notification dated 02.02.2010 are reproduced hereunder:
"(a) Financial assistance from the Central Government to the State Governments opting to revise pay scales of teachers and other equivalent cadre covered under the Scheme shall be limited to the extent of 80% (eighty percent) of the additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision.
(b) The State Government opting for revision of pay shall meet the remaining 20%(twenty percent) of the additional expenditure from its own sources.
(c) Financial assistance referred to in sub-clause(a) above shall be provided for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010.
(d) The entire liability on account of revision of pay scales etc. of college teachers shall be taken over by the State Government opting for revision of pay scales with effect from 01.04.2010.
(e) Financial assistance from the Central Government shall be restricted to revision of pay scales in respect of only those posts which were in existence and had been filled up as on 01.01.2006.
(f) The scheme shall be applicable to teachers who were/are recruited in the regular scale of pay through prescribed recruitment process. This will not extend to posts such as Coaches, Accompanists, Tutors, Demonstrators, System Analyst, Senior analysts, Research Officers and other non-teaching posts."
[Emphasis added] W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 8 of 17 [9] [6] Thus, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel has contended that the State Government's liability would only from 01.04.2010. Prior to that 80% of the financial liability has to be borne by the Central Government. So far this proposition is concerned, there is no dispute. The obligation of the Central Government is restricted to the concerned posts which were in existence and have been filled up on or before 01.01.2006. However, what Mr. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel has contended that the State has received the financial assistance from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010 but the petitioner was not paid the financial benefits for the period till 31.03.2008 in terms of the enhanced increment. Since there is no dispute regarding the date of the petitioner's superannuation, this court would not deal with those averments. Even for assumption of the charge of Vice- Principal or the Principal-in-Charge of Women's College, the petitioner was not paid any additional financial benefit. This part is not required to deal with. There is no dispute regarding the amount of pension as fixed by the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura. Hence, those averments are not relevant, except for purpose of determining the arrear of pension or pay and allowances. The petitioner has averred in Para-18 of the writ petition as under:
"the petitioner received the revised pension as per revised pay scale of the Govt. College Teachers w.e.f. 1st January, 2009 as shown in table-4 of the Notification dated 2nd ebruary, 2009 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition); but in that Annexure-9 in the first page, it was specifically stated that the implementation of the revised pay scale was made w.e.f. 1st January, 2006 but the petitioner was in service as a regular College Teacher having with University Grants Commission scale (Pre- revised scale) from 1st January, 2006 to 28th February, 2007 and she went on retirement after superannuation W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 9 of 17 [10] on 28th February, 2007 on 1st March, 2007. As such, the period of revised pension from 1st March, 2007 to 31st December, 2008 was not given to the present petitioner after retirement. As such, the revised pay scale benefit during the service period of present petitioner from 1st January, 2006 to 28th February, 2007 in the revised pay scale of Rs.37,400/- - Rs.67,000/- + AGP Rs.9,000/- was not given particularly by not giving arrear of pay and allowances to the present petitioner. Similarly the pensionary benefit in the revised pay scale of Rs.37400/-
- Rs.67,000/- + AGP Rs.9,000/- w.e.f. 1st March, 2007 to 31st December, 2008 was not given as arrear of pension to the present petitioner. This is the totally discrimination to the petitioner by the respondents as because in the Notification dated 2nd February, 2010, the Govt. of Tripura has accepted the revised University Grants Commission pay scale and implemented it and in the first page at page-3, it was specifically stated that financial assistance referred to in sub clause-A above shall be provided for the period from 1st January, 2006 to 31st March, 2010 and in sub clause-A, it was stated that financial assistance from the Central Govt. to the State Govt. opting to revised pay scale of teachers and other equivalent covered under scheme shall be limited to the extent of 80% of additional expenditure involved in the implementation of the revision and Clause-B states that the State Government opting for revision of pay shall meet the remaining 20% of additional expenditure from its own source. Now, if this is the position then the respondents had received the money from the Central Govt. in this respect for providing arrear of pay and arrear of pension on the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1st January, 2006 to 28th February, 2007 and on 1st March, 2007 to 31st December, 2008 but this was not done by giving arrear of pay and pension to the present petitioner."
Even though the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that such benefits were given to the College Teachers serving in the Regional College of Physical Education, Government of Tripura, Khowai Govt. Degree College, now Dasarath Deb Memorial College, Government Degree College, Sabroom presently known as Michael Madhusudan Datta College by the respondents No.8,9 and 10 but the petitioner has not been given the similar benefits. The petitioner has again asserted that the Central Government assistance was drawn by the State Government but no document in support of those contentions is placed with the writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 10 of 17 [11] [7] In response to the plea raised by the petitioner, the state-respondents have stated that the Regional College of Physical Education had drawn arrear pay and allowances in respect of 2(two) college teachers amounting to `4,67,586/- being the arrear pay of the teachers of that college. Michael Madhusudan Datta College, Sabroom had drawn arrear pay and allowances for the college teachers amounting to `1,35,440/-. Dasharath Deb Memorial College, Khowai had also drawn 40% of the arrear pay for those teachers who were in position as on 01.01.2006 and paid to the incumbent concerned, but the Principal, Women's College, had not drawn any arrear in respect of the college teachers in position as on 01.01.2006 working at that college. The case of the petitioner is one of them. But these are in tune with the entitlement and not in breach of the notification dated 02.02.2010. In Para-25 of their reply dated 10.04.2013, the state-respondents have stated that the petitioner had enjoyed all the benefits according to the said notification. The arrear pay and allowances for the said period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010 was finally provided by the memorandum dated 04.07.2013, Annexure-R/2 to the said reply. The entire text of the said memorandum is extracted hereunder:
"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT No.F.4(11-4)-DHE/BGT/12 Dated, Agartala the 04.07.2013 MEMORANDUM The Governor of Tripura is pleased to order for payment of arrear pay to the College teachers working in the Govt, (General) Degree Colleges, Institute of Advanced Studies W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 11 of 17 [12] in Education (IASE), Tripura Govt, Law College, Sachin Debbarman Memorial Govt. Music College and Regional College of Physical Education w.e.f. 01-01-2006 to 31-01- 2010 in 3(three) equal instalments (i.e one third amount of due drawn statement of a particular incumbent), who were in position as on 01-01-2006 including those who retired subsequently. The first instalment may be drawn immediately, subject to condition that second instalment would be released only after the central share being 80% of the amount is released against first instalment as reimbursement by Central Government. The arrear pay due to extension of 3% annual increment for the month of February, 2010 onwards may also be drawn in usual course.
2. Total amount of arrear pay meant for 1st instalment to be drawn by the colleges in respect of the teachers who were in position as on 1-01-2006 be communicated to the Director of Higher Education immediately after drawal of arrear for seeking reimbursement to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India.
3. The arrear pay for allowing 3% annual increment to the College teachers who were recruited at the Govt. Colleges in regular scale after 01-01-2006 may also be drawn in normal course.
4. The teachers concerned shall have to exercise an undertaking to the effect that over drawal, if any, will have to be refunded on demand.
5. This is issued in supersession of earlier order of the Government on this direction.
By order of the Governor, (U. Debbarma) Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura"
[8] From a bare reading of the said memorandum, it would be apparent that the payment of arrear from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010 in 3(three) instalments was directed to be paid for those incumbents who were in position as on 01.01.2016 on computing such arrear having enhanced the annual increment 3%.
But the petitioner did not amend the writ petition by apprising this court of the said subsequent event. However, for this provision, the claim for the arrears for the period from 01.01.2006 to 28.02.2007 has become infructuous. The state-respondents have categorically asserted in Para-29 of their reply that the writ petitioner has challenged the said rules by way of amendment but that W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 12 of 17 [13] development was not incorporated. For the said amendments, the state-respondents have filed an additional counter affidavit on 17.06.2016. In the said additional counter affidavit they have admitted the position of 80% of the financial assistance to the State Government for purpose of implementation of the said revision of pay scale as recommended by the UGC. They have categorically stated in Para-7 of the said additional counter affidavit that 'as such, the revision of pension w.e.f. 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2008 is notional according to the provision of Rule 3(3) of the Notification No.F.8(3)-FIN(G)/09 dated 05.05.2009.' The state-respondents have further stated as under:
"However, vide Rule 3 (3) ibid Financial benefit was made admissible from 1st January, 2009 or from the date of superannuation/retirement which ever was later. For all other cases, the pension was computed notionally as per revised rates of scale of pay. Since the petitioner retired on 28-02-2007 so her revised pension upto 31- 12-2008 was computed notionally. The claim of the petitioner is to allow her arrears of pension as per revised rates for the period from 01-03-2007 to 31-12- 2008. It is a fact that Financial condition of the State has been passing through turbulent time since the recommendations of the Twelfth Finance Commission. State Government has to depend on Central Government funding for meeting up its Plan and Non-Plan expenditure. The funding by the Central Government is based on the recommendations of the Finance Commission. Finance Commission under estimated State's projections of Non-plan revenue expenditure which included salaries, pension and interest payment (Non-Flexible and Committed Expenditure). For example, the State Government presented a realistic picture of Rs.3944.79 crores towards meeting up expenditure towards pension as per revised pay scales. Contrary to it, the Finance Commission assessed a cumulative expenditure of Rs.2779.09 crores which was Rs.1165.70 less than the actual assessment by the State Government. 12th Finance Commission calculated pension at Rs.342.01 crores during the year 2008-09 and Rs.413.83 crores during the year 2009-10. This is an increase of approximately 9% over 2007-08 and 21% over 2008-09. However, as per actual implication, the expenditure during 2008-09 and 2009-10 has been Rs.356.43 crores and Rs.559.89 crores respectively which is 14% and 57% higher than that of previous years. Thus, due to under assessment of the state's Financial position by the Finance Commission, there has been a shortfall in funding on Non-Plan revenue expenditure. It was now required to make payment of pension without compromising with the State's Finances W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 13 of 17 [14] on development front. As such Financial benefit towards payment of pension was considered from 01-01-2009. All other cases of retirement falling within 01-01-2006 to 31-12-2008 were allowed pension fixed notionally. Further, payment of arrears of pension will have a huge impact on the State Finances as there are large numbers of retirees during that period. Considering, the constrained financial position of the State, it is not possible to consider further payment of arrears of pension to the similarly situated persons as it would give rise to huge financial burden on the State Exchequer which will disturb the financial equilibrium of the State."
[9] By filing the additional rejoinder, the petitioner has simply denied that had the financial benefits had been given, huge financial burden would have been placed on the state exchequer inasmuch as the payment of the arrear pension is concerned only for the period from 01.03.2006 to 28.12.2008.
[10] Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General appearing for the state-respondents has submitted that the competence of framing the rules when is not under challenge, the constitutionality of the rules can be challenged by the petitioner on the ground of its rationality. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has further submitted that the fiscal policy as reflected in the impugned amendment rules cannot be challenged. In this regard, Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has placed his reliance on State of Punjab and others vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and others, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 117, where the apex court has clearly laid down principle as under:
"the right of the State to change its policy from time to time, under the changing circumstances is neither challenged nor could it be."
[11] In the context, the pertinent question that falls for consideration before this court is that whether this court does have W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 14 of 17 [15] its jurisdiction to strike down Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 or not. The plea raised by the petitioner is that there is no reasonable excuse to deny the actual benefit of pension for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 inasmuch as 80% of the financial requirement for implementation was to be borne by the Central Government whereas the State Government was to bear merely 20% of the entire requirement for making payment of the arrear pension for the said period. Even a policy decision according to us, can be scrutinized and if the policy is arbitrary and in conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There must be a reasonable nexus to the object which the policy seeks to achieve. Ordinarily, the pension is a property and the state is not supposed to deny the incumbent concerned from his or her right to enjoyment of that property. Even there is no dispute that the basis of denying the enjoyment of a substantive part of the pensionary benefit is that the state does not have the required finance and that is the sole reason to deny the arrears of pension. It is evident that the right to pension has been acknowledged by the scheme granting notionally under Rule 3(3) of the said rules. It is not normally within the domain of any court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinize it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling it, based on however sound and good reasoning, except where it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other provision of law. When the Government forms its policy, we W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 15 of 17 [16] acknowledge that it is ordinarily based on number of circumstances of fact and law including constraint on its resources. The policies are based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if the court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on the fact set out on affidavits. We acknowledge that the State does not have unlimited resources and the State has also the responsibility to manage its resources having due regard to the general obligation of welfare of citizens. Even no right could be absolute in a welfare State. Hence every individual right has to give way to the rights of public at large. But when the foundation provided is grossly unreasonable and the action is wholly arbitrary, the court has the power to interfere with such policy. [12] We have thoroughly scrutinized the foundation as projected by the state-respondents by the passage from the additional counter affidavit, as reproduced above. We find from the condition laid down in the notification dated 02.02.2010 that out of the total financial requirement the Central Government shall bear 80% till 31.03.2010. The period mentioned in the Rule 3(3) of the said rules falls within the said coverage period and as such, what the State Government has projected that for the financial crunch they had been compelled to bring the said amendment in the said pension rules is wholly unacceptable and in contrast to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The foundation i.e. the financial crunch has not satisfied us at all. Hence, we are of the view that the said Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules being absolutely arbitrary is liable to W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 16 of 17 [17] be struck down. Accordingly, we strike down the Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009. The respondents No.2,3 & 4 are directed to pay the arrear pension for the period from 01.03.2007 to 31.12.2008 to the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from today, else the said amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from 01.04.2010.
[13] Having held so, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sujay
W.P.(C) No.494 of 2012 Page 17 of 17