Karnataka High Court
State Bank Of India Pensioners vs State Bank Of India on 17 September, 2013
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION No.16482/2006(S-RES)
And WP Nos.43208-10/2013
C/w.WP No.12837/2008(S-RES)
And WP Nos.43211-43233/2013
WRIT PETITION No.16482/2006(S-RES)
And WP Nos.43208-10/2013
BETWEEN:
1.STATE BANK OF INDIA
PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION (KARNATAKA)
STATE BANK BUILDINGS
ST. MARK'S ROAD, BANGALORE 1,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2.R.N.GODBOLE
S/O N.K.GODBOLE
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICER IN
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-II,
AT STATE BANK OF INDIA,
LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED R/AT NO.24,
SBI OFFICERS' COLONY
BANGALORE 560 079.
SINCE DEAD BY L.R.
2
2(a). SMT. ROHINI RAVINDRA GODBOLE,
W/O. LATE R.N.GODBOLE,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.24, SBI OFFICERS' COLONY
BASAVESHWARANAGARA,
BANGALORE-79.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DT:20.7.2012)
3.V.N.INAMDAR
S/O N.S.INAMDAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICER IN
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-II,
STATE BANK OF INDIA
COMMERCIAL BRANCH,
RAJAJINAGAR, B'LORE, SINCE RETD.
R/AT NO.45, SBI OFFICER COLONY,
B'LORE 79
4.L MENEZES
S/O LATE B MENEZES
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
EARLIER WORKING AS ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
LOCAL HEAD OFFICER, BANGALORE
SINCE RETIRED R/AT NO.11,
STATE BANK OF INDIA
OFFICERS' COLONY,BANGALORE 79. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.N.PRASANNA, ADV, FOR
M/S.P.S.RAJAGOPAL, ADVS.)
AND:
1.STATE BANK OF INDIA
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955,
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT,
CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN,
MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI 400 021,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3
2.UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
JEEVAN VIHAR, PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI 110 011.
3.RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR,
4.STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES
PENSION FUND
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE,
MUMBAI 400 021. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SUBRAMANYA, ADV. FOR,
SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI FOR R1 & R4,
SRI B.PRAMOD FOR R2,R3-RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
SD.ABSENT)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTS.226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE EXCLUSION OF
PENSIONERS WHO RETIRED FROM THE SERVICES OF
THE BANK PRIOR TO 1.11.2002 FROM THE BENEFIT OF
REVISION BY CIRCULAR D. 24.8.2006 VIDE ANX-P, IS
ARBITRARY, IRRATIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND DIRECT THE R1/BANK TO
EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF 100% NEUTRALIZATION FOR
ALL PENSIONERS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF
RETIREMENT BY COMPUTING THE DEARNESS RELIEF AT
0.67% FOR THOSE WHO HAVE RETIRED UPTO AND
INCLUSIVE OF 31ST OCTOBER 1992, 0.35% FOR THOSE
WHO RETIRED BETWEEN 1.11.1993 TO 31.3.1998 AND AT
0.24% FOR THOSE WHO RETIRED BETWEEN 1.1.1998
AND 31.10.2002 IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR BASIC PENSION
AND ALSO DIRECT THE R1 TO PAY INTEREST ON
4
DELAYED PAYMENT OF PENSION FROM 1.9.2006 UNTIL
THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
WP No.12837/2008(S-RES)
& WP Nos.43211-43233/2013:
1.SRI Y. MOHAN SHETTY
S/O. Y KALAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/A NO.210, HIG LAYOUT
2ND MAIN, 11TH CROSS
RAJ MAHAL VILAS II STAGE
BANGALORE 560 004.
2.SRI K.S.PRAKASH RAO
S/O LATE SHRI SANJIV RAO
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/A NO.65, AICOBOONAGAR
17TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS
BTM LAYOUT I STAGE
BANGALORE 560 068.
3 SRI N.ANANDA RAO
S/O N SHESHAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO.501/D-1
"WHITE HOUSE", R.T.NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 032.
4.SRI P.MOHAN BHAT
S/O LATE P NARAYANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/A NO.G-1, BRIGADE RETREAT
ADIPAMPA ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA
MYSORE 570 001.
5.SRI H.S.KAMATH
S/O H RANGA KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A NO.217, 16TH CROSS
5
M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 040.
6.SRI P GOKULDAS KAMATH
S/O LATE P NARASIMHA KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/A NO.176, "GOWRI GANESH"
9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS
AICOBOONAGAR, BTM II STAGE
BANGALORE 560 076.
7.SRI K RAMACHANDRA NAYAK
S/O LATE K PURUSHOTHAMA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/A NO.1787 "SRI VENKATA NIVAS"
1ST FLOOR, 14TH MAIN, 34TH CROSS
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BANGALORE 560070.
8.SRI U. YESHWANTH SHENOY
S/O W.NARAYAN SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/A NO.5, 4TH MAIN
SANGOLLI RAYANNA LANE
NEAR CORPORATION BANK
NEW BEL ROAD, RMV II STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 094.
9.SRI K N RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE K NARAYANA JOIS
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/A NO.1359, I MAIN ROAD
PRASHANTH NAGAR
NEAR M.R.K.H.B.COLONY
BANGALORE 560 079.
10.SRI U.P.PURANIK
S/O SUBBAYYA PURANIK
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/A NO.25, SHRINIDHI
6
I CROSS, 6TH MAIN
SARVABHOUMANAGAR
CHIKKALSANDRA, BANGALORE 560 061.
11.SRI K.TARACHANDRA
S/O K VITTAL KARKERA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A NO.B-16, DEVINA SRUSTI
K.P.T.APARTMENTS
MANIVILAS GARDEN
KAMALANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 079.
12.SRI K.VAIKUNTA BHAT
S/O LATE K.RAMACHANDRA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/A NO.198, SARASWATHINAGAR
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 040.
13.SRI DAYANANDA K SHETTY
S/O KARIYANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/A NO.197/D/1, 8TH B MAIN
3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 011.
14.SRI K.PADMANABHA NAVADA
S/O K SUBRAYA NAVADA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/A NO.17, 6TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS
R.K.LAYOUT I STAGE
PADMANABHANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 070.
15.MS.SRI N PRAFULLA ANAND RAO
D/O. B.N. ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO.501/D-1
"WHITE HOUSE", R.T.NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 032.
7
16.SRI DAYANANDA N.MALLYA
S/O LATE B.NARASIMHA MALLYA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A NO.163, AICOBOONAGAR
13TH MAIN, SERVICE ROAD
BTM I STAGE, MADIVALA P.O.,
BANGALORE 560 068.
17.SRI V.ANNAPPAYYA HOLLA
S/O LATE V.RAMA HOLLA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A NO.802, SYNDICATE BANK
STAFF COLONY, MOODALAPALYA
BANGALORE 560 072
18.SRI KARKALA PURUSHOTHAM JOISHY
S/O KARKALA GANAPATHI JOISHY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/A H.NO.115, AICOBOONAGAR
13TH MAIN, 4TH BLCOK,
BTM LAYOUT, I STAGE
BANGALORE 560 068.
19.MANGALORE GANESH BHAT
S/O PURUSHOTTAM RAM BHAT
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/A TEERTHROOP, 53, AICOBOONAGAR
17TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS
BTM LAYOUT, I STAGE, BANGALORE.
20.SRI B RAGHURAM PRABHU
S/O B YENKATRAMANA PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/A H.NO.63, SREE NARASIMHA KRIPA
1ST MAIN, K.G.S.ROAD, MARENAHALLI,
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040.
8
21.SRI P.SACHIDANANDA BHAT
S/O NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A NO.1178, 1ST MAIN
DR.AMBEDKAR LAYOUT
KAVALBYRASANDRA, BANGALORE.
22.SRI K. MOHANDAS SHETTY
S/O K SHIVARAM SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/A "AKSA", 2ND MAIN
V.P.NAGAR, KUNJIBETTU
UDUPI 576 102.
23.SRI B.RANGANATH HEGDE
S/O A HARIANNA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/A NO.603, CLASSIQUE APARTMENTS
BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD
MANGALORE 575 003.
24.SRI T.V.SWAMINATHAN
S/O T VEERASWAMI IYER
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/A NO.102, SHARATH APARTMENTS
K.R.LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS,
J.P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE,
BANGALORE 560 078. .. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M.N.PRASANNA, M/S. P.S. RAJAGOPAL
ASSOCIATES)
AND:
1.SYNDICATE BANK
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING
COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF
UNDERTAKINGS)ACT 1970
HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL 576 104
UDUPI DISTRICT. REP BY ITS GENERAL
MANAGER, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT.
9
2.THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING/PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI 110011.
3.THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI
REP BY ITS GOVERNOR. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.SUBHA ANANTHI, ADV. FOR
M/S KASTURI ASSOCIATES FOR R1,
SRI B.PRAMOD FOR R2, R3 SD.(ABSENT).
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE EXCLUSION OF
PENSIONERS WHO RETIRED FROM THE SERVICES OF
THE BANK PRIOR TO 1.11.2002, FROM THE BENEFIT OF
UNIFORM NEUTRALIXATION IN THE MATTER OF
DEARNESS RELIEF AND PENSION IS ARBITRARY,
IRRATIONAL, ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY ISSUE
OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND
DIRECT THE R1,BANK TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF 100%
NEUTRALIZATION FOR ALL PENSIONERS IRRESPECTIVE
OF THE DATE OF RETIREMTNT, GRANT THEM DEARNESS
RELIEF EXACTLY ON THE LINES OF WORKING
EMPLOYEES AND PAY ARREARS OF DEARNESS RELIEF
AND PENSION ON THAT BASIS FROM 1ST FEABRUARY
2005, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR BASIC PENSION AND
ALSO DIRECT THE R1, TO PAY INTEREST ON DELAYED
PAYMENTS OF PENSION AND DEARNESS RELIEF FROM
1.4.2005, UNTIL THE DATE OF PAYMENT IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
10
ORDER
The petitioners in WP No.12837/08 and WP Nos.43211-33/13 are ex-employees of the first respondent- Syndicate Bank. The Writ Petitioners in WP No.16482/06 and WP Nos.43208-10/13 are ex-employees of first respondent State Bank of India. The plea put-forth by the petitioners is that, they joined the services of their respective banks and have since retired. Each one of them is entitled to a pension under the provisions of the Syndicate Bank employees Pension Regulations, 1995 with respect to WP No. WP No.12837/08 and WP Nos.43211-33/13, in respect of WP No.16482/2006 and WP Nos.43208-10/13, petitioners are entitled for pension under the SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules.
2. They are aggrieved by the discriminatory and arbitrary Dearness Allowance formula adopted by the respondent Banks with respect to those persons who have retired prior to 1.11.2002. It is contended that, by placing reliance upon the Bipartite Settlement dated 2.6.2005 at clause-7 which states that DA shall be payable with effect 11 from 1.11.2002 which the respondents have adopted, petitioners who have retired prior to 1.11.2002 would not be entitled for the said benefits. But, the persons who have retired after 1.11.2002, receive a higher DA than the petitioners who have retired prior to 1.11.2002. That all the pensioners of the respondent-Bank constitute a particular class. Therefore, the respondent-Banks cannot differentiate between the persons belonging to the same category in view of the higher DA being granted to those who have retired after 1.11.2002 than the present petitioners who have retired prior to 1.11.2002, thereby Article 14 stands affected and therefore, relief that is granted to persons who have retired after 1.11.2002, should also be extended to the case of the petitioners.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respective banks dispute the same. They contend that, so far as employees of nationalized banks are concerned, there was no scheme of grant of any pension or otherwise. That it is only in the year 1993 that a settlement was arrived at between the banks to put its employees on various terms 12 and conditions; consequence whereof, the employee of the banks received a benefit of pension, DA etc., Subsequent to thereof, in the year 1995, the respondent-Syndicate Bank brought about the Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 in terms whereof, the pension payable to the employees is regulated in terms of Regulations 35, 36 and 37. Under the circumstances, whatever relief that may be granted in terms of such regulations, is granted to the petitioners. That the DA is revised from time to time covering a particular period of time. For the period from 1.11.2002 to 31.10.2007, a rate of DA was held applicable to the persons who retired during that period. For the persons who retired prior to 1.11.2002 a different rate of Dearness Allowance was granted and for those persons who retired between 1.11.1992 to 31.10.2002, it was paid at a different rate. Therefore, they constitute two different class of persons having retired in two different blocks of dates. Therefore, all persons who retired prior to 1.11.2002 would receive a different dearness allowance than those persons who retired after 1.11.2002. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a 13 discrimination between these two classes of pensioners. That such a classification has been made which is in the interest of the employees. Therefore, to contend it is arbitrary and it affects Article 14, is incorrect.
4. Heard Sri Nagaprasanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Sri R.Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 4, Sri B.Pramod, learned counsel for respondent no.2 in WP No.16482/06 and WP Nos.43208-10/2013 Smt.Subha Ananthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Sri B.Pramod, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 in WP No.12837/08 and WP Nos.43211-233/2013 examined the material on record.
5. The contention of the petitioners is based on discrimination. The thrust of the contention is that, the classification made by the respondent-Banks between persons who have retired prior to 1.11.2002 and after that, is arbitrary. That persons who retired constitute one class. There cannot be a differentiation between them. It is 14 contended that in certain cases officers and officials who are junior to them would be receiving a higher pension than their seniors. Therefore, the classification made by the respondents leads to absurdity and hence requires to be quashed.
6. In support of his case, he placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 (D.S.Nakara vs.Union of India) to contend that the petitioners being in service and retiring subsequent to a specific date for being eligible for liberalized pension was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and that is arbitrary and discriminatory. That persons in Government service who retired prior and subsequent to the specified date form one class. They having been classified in two different groups for pension, there could be no such division which classified pensioners into two classes and it is not based on any rational principle. He also contended, that the classification has to be based as well as settled on some rational principle and the rational principle must have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
15
7. Reliance is placed on (1998) 8 SCC 30 in the case of V.Kasturi vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and another wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraphs 21 and 22 as follows:
"21. It is now time for us to take stock of the situation. From the aforesaid resume of relevant decisions of this Court spread over the years to which our attention was invited by learned counsel for the respective parties, the following legal position clearly gets projected.
Category 1
22. If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation, the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time 16 the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of Nakara case would cover this category of cases."
8. He therefore, pleads that the said Judgments come to his aid and the petitioners who have retired prior to 1.11.2002 should be granted the same benefit as is soguht to be granted in favour of the persons who retired after 1.11.2002.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents dispute the same. They contend that the Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Nakara's case has since been clarified in subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself. Reliance is placed on Judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 2607 (Commander, Head Quarter, Calcutta and others, vs. Capt. Biplabendra Chanda) with reference to paras 5 and 6 wherein it has been held as follows:
"5. The decision in D.S.Nakara (AIR 1983 SC 130) has indeed been explained by two subsequent Constitution Bench 17 decisions of this Court in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 207 : (AIR 1990 SC 1782) and Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCR 158:
(1991) AIR SCW 327). In the latter decision, it has been held that "the petitioners claim that all pre 1.4.1979 retirees of the Armed Forces are entitled to the same amount of pension as shown in appendices 'A', 'B' and 'C' for each rank is clearly untenable and does not flow from the Nakara decision." We may also refer in this connection to the observations in another decision of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Ratan Behari Dey (1993 ) 4 SCC 62: (1993 AIR SCW 2980, Paras 7 and 8) to the following effect:
"......... it is open to the State or to the Corporation, as the case may be, to change the conditions of service unilaterally. Terminal benefits as well as pensionary benefits constitute conditions of service. The employer has the undoubted power to revise the salaries and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary benefits. The power to specify a date from which the revision of pay scales or terminal benefits/pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is a concomitant of the said power. So long as such date is specified in a reasonable manner i.e., without bringing about a discrimination between similarly situated persons, no interference is called for by the Court in that behalf......the power of the State to specify a date with effect from which the Regulations framed, or amended, as the case may be, shall come into force is unquestioned. A date can be 18 specified both prospectively as well as retrospectively. The only question is whether the prescription of the date in this case, is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, the complaint of discrimination must fail."
6. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a recent decision of this Court in M.C.Dhingra v. Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC 564: (1996 Air SCW 176), but that was also a case where a distinction was sought to be made between the same class of pensioners. The said decision, therefore, cannot come to the rescue of the respondent."
10. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005(6) SCC 754 in the case of State Bank of Punjab and Others vs. Amar Nath Goyal and others, wherein it has been held at paragraphs 29 and 30 as follows:
"29. D.S. Nakara (supra), which is the mainstay of the case of the employees, arose under special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classifications of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date". This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of 19 Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/ groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia, which had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. However, it must be noted that even in cases of pension, subsequent judgments of this Court have considerably watered down the rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara (supra) as we shall see later in T. N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and Ors. ("Veerasamy"). In any event, this is not a case of a continuing benefit like pension; it is a one-time benefit like gratuity.
30. In Union of India v. P.N.Menon and Ors., while implementing the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission with regard to dearness pay linked to average index level 272, which was to be counted as emoluments for pension and gratuity under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Central Government had fixed a certain cut-off date and directed that only officers retiring on or after the specified date were entitled to the benefits of the dearness pay being counted for the purpose of retirement benefits. This was challenged as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court turned down the challenge and observed:
"Not only in matters of revising the pensionary benefits, but even in respect of revision of scales 20 of pay, a cut-off date on some rational or reasonable basis, has to be fixed for extending the benefits. This can be illustrated. The Government decides to revise the pay scale of its employees and fixes the 1st day of January of the next year for implementing the same or the 1st day of January of the last year. In either case, a big section of its employees are bound to miss the said revision of the scale of pay, having superannuated before that date. An employee, who has retired on 31st December of the year in question, will miss that pay scale only by a day, which may affect his pensionary benefits throughout his life. No scheme can be held to be foolproof, so as to cover and keep in view all persons who were at one time in active service. As such the concern of the court should only be, while examining any such grievance, to see, as to whether a particular date for extending a particular benefit or scheme, has been fixed, on objective and rational considerations."
11. Reliance is placed on the Judgment reported in 2002 (2) SCC 179 in the case of State of West Bengal and another vs. West Bengal Govt.Pensioners' Associations and others paragraph-20 which reads as follows:
21
"20. What is noticeable is that the definition of the word "emoluments" in the 1971 Rules was not amended. As such pension continued to be calculated on the basis of emoluments as defined in the 1971 Rules, namely, the last pay drawn immediately prior to retirement. The pay of the pre-1986 pensioners was not revised. The Third Pay Commission had given a reason for choosing 1-1- 1986, as the cut-off date. As held in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India ((1990) 4 SCC 207) and Union of India v. P.N. Menon (1994) 4 SCC 68 merely because a cut-off date is fixed would not make the exercise invalid although persons in the service immediately before the cut-off date would be deprived of the benefit of the revised scales of pay. It would depend upon the relevancy of the consideration underlying the choice of such date. The reason stated by the Third Pay Commission cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrelevant."
12. There too, the Judgment in Nakara's case was clarified to the following effect in paragraph-22 which reads as follows:
22. Nakara decision (1983) 1 SCC 305 did not direct the payment of an equal amount of pension to all pensioners. This is clear from the following passage where the Court discusses the financial impact of the 22 formula on the resources of the Government: (SCC p.334, para 49) "In our opinion, it would make a marginal difference in the case of past pensioners because the emoluments are not revised.
The last revision of emoluments was as per the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission (Raghubar Dayal Commission). If the emoluments remain the same, the computation of average emoluments under amended Rule 34 may raise the average emoluments, the period for averaging being reduced from last 36 months to last 10 months. The slab will provide slightly higher pension and if someone reaches the maximum the old lower ceiling will not deny him what is otherwise justly due on computation."
13. It is therefore contended that merely because of a cut off date, it would not affect the petitioners although immediately before the cut off date, they would be deprived of the benefit of the revised scale of pay. Under the circumstances, they submit that petitions may be dismissed.23
14. The contention of the petitioners is primarily based on the Judgment reported in Nakara's case. The subsequent Judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, the principles as enunciated therein have substantially been re-read in West Bengal Pensioners Association case wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the said Judgment and other Judgments on the issue as per the case of Krishena Kumar was of the view that merely because a cut off date is fixed, would not make the exercise invalid, although persons in service immediately before the cut-off date would be deprived of the benefit of the revised scales of pay. It would depend upon the relevancy of the consideration underlying the choice of such a date. The object of a cut off date will not invalidate the benefit that is denied to the petitioners therein. It would depend on the relevancy and applicability of such a situation.24
15. In the case of Commander, HQs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the decision in Nakara's case was explained by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishena Kumar and Indian Ex-
Services League case that the petitioners' claim therein from 1.4.1979 are entitled to the same amount of pension for each rank but the claim for the same amount of pension to be paid to all pre-April 1979 retirees of the armed forces as to the post-April 1979 retirees was rejected. It was held that it was clearly untenable and that such a proposition does not flow from the Judgment in Nakara's case. A distinction was sought to be made between the two classes of pensioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment and while explaining the Judgment in Nakara's case and also referring to the subsequent to Constitution Bench judgments, was of the view that a distinction between those two classes of pensioners cannot be said to be arbitrary. Therefore, it was held that the action of the respondents is not arbitrary. 25 Under the circumstances, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
16. The contention of the respondents that merely because a cut off date has been fixed would render the same as invalid or affecting Article 14 therefore, cannot be accepted.
17. Subsequently too, in the Judgment reported in 1994(4) SCC 68 in the case of Union of India vs. P.N.Menon and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraph-8 as follows:
"8. Whenever the Government or an authority, which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, frames a Scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such any revised scheme in respect of post- retirement benefits, if implemented with a cut-off date, which can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. It shall not amount to "picking out a date from the hat", as was said by this Court in the case of 26 D.R.Nim v. Union of India in connection with fixation of seniority. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut-off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government".
18. Therefore, in the present case, it cannot be said that the classification sought to be made by the respondents cannot be said to "pick out a date from the hat". It is a reasonable cut off date, spread over for two block periods of five years. Such a block of five years was being applied by the respondent-Banks ever since the settlement was arrived at between them from the previous two block periods. Therefore, it cannot be said that the fixing of this block period is either arbitrary or without any nexus. The block period of five years would amount to a reasonable classification. It necessarily has a nexus in the differentiation in fixing a cut off date for grant of pension to a class of persons who fall within that cut off date.
19. In the Judgment reported in (2008) 14 SCC 702 in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and 27 others vs. N.Subbarayudu and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph 5 and 6, 7 and 8 as follows:
"5. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. (See State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 754).
6. No doubt in D.S.Nakara & Ors.
Vs.Union of India (1983(1) SCC 305) this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara's Case (supra), as observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs.Amar Nath Goyal.
7. There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a 28 particular cut off date has been fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection.
8. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by the Government, (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical) vide State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of India & Anr.vs.Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76 (vide SCC para 31), University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result."29
20. Here too, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a cut off date as fixed by the respondents was because of the economic conditions, financial constraints, administrative and other attending circumstances. Therefore, it is contended that, fixing the cut off date is within the very authority of the respondents and it is not for the Court to interfere until and unless it is shown to be discriminatory, arbitrary or capricious or results in an absurd result.
21. On a consideration of these very circumstances, the respondents have taken a decision to fix a cut off date as having a nexus to the object sought to be achieved which would not lead to any absurdity as mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein. Even otherwise, a cut-off date would necessarily have to be applied. It cannot be a scheme where there is no cut-off date at all. Therefore, somewhere a cut-off has to be made. Therefore, the respondents have fixed a block period of five years. It 30 would not discriminate among the persons who retired or it cannot be against the interest of persons who have retired. Such a cut-off date with this period was in vogue earlier also. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that date fixed for grant of DA to persons who have retired prior to 1.11.2012 and subsequent, cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
22. For these reasons, I' am unable to accept the contentions put-forth by the petitioners' counsel. Consequently, I do not find any merit in these petitions.
23. In view of the above reasons, the contentions being devoid of merit, the writ petitions must fail. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sk/-