Patna High Court
Bihar Pensioners Samaj vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 1 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(51)BLJR123
JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J.
1. This is a petition on behalf of Bihar Pensioners Samaj filed through its Secretary Sri Dharam Deo Prasad, Pension Bhawan, Patliputra Colony, Patna. This writ petition raises very important issues of (a) equals being treated unequally and (b) an attempt by the Government of Bihar to nullify a judgment of the High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, by legislation so as to avoid its compliance and deprive a class of retired Government staff of the benefits of increased and arrears of pension from a certain date. The facts are short.
2. The 4th Pay Commission, was recommending increase of emoluments and allowances, and consequential pension as may have accrued to those who are on the pay roll of the State Government and to such of those to whom the 4th Pay Commission recommendations would apply. The recommendation of the Pay Commissions from time to time take into account the inflation so as to vary and increase the pay structure.
3. The constitution of the 4th Pay Commission was announced in Parliament on 29 July, 1983 and it came into existence on September 1, 1983. The first meeting of the commission was held on September 6, 1983. There was wide participation in expressing views to the 4th Pay Commission solicited by the commission itself, suffice it to say in so far as it is relevant, like other State Governments the State of Bihar was also invited to participate in the discussion and it joined the commission in having its views expressed.
4. The announcement of 4th Central Pay Commission was notified in the Gazette of India of extraordinary by a public notice. The notice is reproduced below:
FOURTH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION PUBLIC NOTICE The Government of India have appointed the Fourth Central Pay Commission with the following terms of reference as notified in the Gazette of India Extraordinary No. 125 dated 29-7-1983:--
(1) To examine the present structure of emoluments and conditions of service, taking into account the total packet of benefits, including death-cum-retirement benefits, available to the following categories of Government employees and to suggest changes which may be desirable and feasible:--
(i) Central Government employees-industrial and non-industrial
(ii) Personal belonging to the All India Services,
(iii) Employees of the Union Territories.
(2) To examine the present structure of emoluments taking into account the total packet of benefits in cash and kind including death-cum-retirement benefits available to Armed Forces Personnel and to suggest changes which may be desirable and feasible, having regard to their terms and conditions of service.
(3) To examine the variety of allowances and benefits in kind that are presently available to the employees in addition to pay and to suggest rationalisation and simplification thereof with a view to promoting efficiency in administration.
(4) To make recommendations on the above having regard, among other relevant factors, to the prevailing pay structure under the Public Sector Undertakings, State Governments, etc., economic conditions in the country, the resources of the Central Government and the demands thereon, such as those on account of developmental planning, defence and national security.
The Commission invites all associations, unions, institutions, other organisations and interested individuals to send memoranda containing their views on the aforesaid matters, dealing with each subject separately, numbering the paragraphs. Ten copies of such memoranda may be sent to the Member-Secretary, Fourth Central Pay Commission, Post Box No. 28 New Delhi-11 000 I, so as to reach him on or before November 15, 1983.
Sd/ A.K. Majumdar Member-Secretary Fourth Central Pay Commission
5. The fact that 4th Central Pay Commission sent out its questionnaire and received information from those to whom it has been sent is not relevant for the purpose of this case. While the commission was executing its business, it made provision for grant of interim relief. The terms of reference of the commission were announced by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, vide Resolution No. 5(56)-E. III/83 dated February 16,1985. The Commission was also required to consider grant of interim relief and interim reliefs were also recommended. The present case is concerned with pensions, family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. In short these may be called pensionary benefits.
6. The Government of Bihar acknowledged by resolution dated 6th May, 1986 and accordingly notified that since the Government of India had extended tine benefit of liberalised pension formula to their pensioners who were in receipt of the pension as on 1-4-1979 on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court the State Government also took decision to make available the aforesaid benefit of liberalised pension formula to (sic) its pensioners who were in receipt of the pension as on 1-4-1979. In this context the State Government took a decision that payment of arrears would be made available from 1-4-1979 but the arrears of pension in respect of the period from 1-4-1979 to 31-12-1985 would be released in instalment. It further provided that there would be no revision in respect of temporary increases of relief in pension which had already been allowed to pensioners between this period. This aspect led to a controversy. This is best explained by the petitioners in paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20. These paragraphs are reproduced:
(17) That aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution, Bhagalpur, Pensioners Samaj filed a writ application before this Hon'ble Court bearing C.W. J.C. 4269 of 1986 challenging the Propriety and legality of the aforesaid decision of the State Government in not releasing the arrears in one lump sum and also in respect of the provision with regard to no revision in respect of temporary increases and relief in pension which had already been allowed to the pensioners between 1-4-1979 to 31-12-1985.
(18) That according to the writ petitioners of the aforesaid case the decision not to allow the revision in respect of temporary increases and relief in pension which had already been allowed to the pensioners between 1-4-1979 to 31-12-1985 was taken only in respect of such pensioners, who retired from the Government service prior tc 1-4-1979 whereas those, who had retired on or after 1-4-1979, the said bar was not applicable. The aforesaid writ application was allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 16th March, 1988, the Hon'ble Court held that the part of the resolution providing that there would be no revision in respect of temporary increases and reliefs in pension, which had already been allowed to the pensioners between 1-4-1979 to 31-12-1985 was not only irrational but discriminatory and hit by. Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the said part was quashed. The Hon'ble Court further directed that the persons, who retired prior to 1-4-1979 would also be treated alike with the persons, who have retired on or after 1-4-1979 so far the revision in respect of temporary increase and relief in pension.
(19) That when petitioner No. 1 came to know about issuance of Office memo dated 14th April, 1987 by Government of India regarding new pension structure based on the recommendation of the 4th Central Pay Revision Commission with regard to rationalisation of pre-1986 pensioners, the petitioner along with its President approached the respondents for similar order in respect of the pensioners of the State Government, who retired on or after 1-1-1986 and also for pre-1986 retirees.
(20) That ultimately the Councils of the Minister in its meeting held on 19-4-1988 took a decision for applicability of similar decision for applicability of similar pattern as adopted by the Central Government to the pensioners of the State Government. The proposal was that the payment of arrears be paid from 1 -1 -1986 and in one lump sum.
(21) That, however, the Finance Department did not issue any order although the decision of the Cabinet was published in the local News paper. The petitioner was informed by the Finance Department that any decision regarding new pension structure would the taken after the recommendation of the Fifty (sic) State Pay Revision Committee.
7. The issue in the writ petition relates to the stand of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar not taking out a Government order though the Cabinet decision had been published in the newspapers and the pensioners in Bihar were given to understand that any decision regarding the new pension structure would be taken after recommendation of the 5th pay revision committee. It is accepted that subsequently parleys were held between the representatives of the pensioners and the then Chief Minister. It was agreed that as a consequence of approval by the Cabinet on 19th April, 1988 the benefit of revision and rationalisation, whether salary or pension, would be made available from 1-1-1986 as in the case of the employees of the Central Government This aspect is also accepted on behalf of the State at the Bar. These circumstances are otherwise noticed in a judgment of the High Court in re- Bihar Pensioners Samaj v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1996 (2) PLJR 893.
8. On the faith as was given to the pensioners, it appears that subsequently, the State Government changed its mind. The petitioners represented through Bihar Pensioners Samaj submitted that this was a fait-accompli. The petitioners refer to a notification of the Finance Department, dated 19th April, 1990 (Annexure-1). A bare reading of the this resolution clearly bears out that whereas benefits were meant to accrue from 1st July, 1986, in the matter relating to revision of pensions, this benefit was to be made available after 28th February, 1989 implying thereby as the notification itself mentions "no arrears accruing from revision of pension during the period from 1st January, 1986 to the 28th February, 1989 shall be paid to the pensioners." This clearly meant that a class of pensioners who were otherwise entitled to benefit, by the notification were excluded from receiving it. On this a writ petition was filed. This was C.W.J.C. No. 2467/91 - Bihar Pensioners Samaj v. The State of Bihar and Ors., (supra). After having noticed the entire facts, which are not being repeated in this order, the Division Bench which was ceased of the matter summed up the issues in paragraph 4, which is reproduced below:--
"It is no doubt open to the State Government to revise/retionalise its pension scheme either on the-same pattern as followed by the Government of India or to frame its own scheme and to also fix a cut of date. In fact, on the present case, it could as well, have fixed 1-3-1989 or date of issue of the impugned resolution i. e. 19-4-1996 as the cut off date. The question for consideration revert below to whether having decided to revise/rationalise the pension scheme with effect from on the central pattern, the State Government had any jurisdiction to deny the consequential monetary benefits thereof and make the same effective only from 1-3-1989."
9. Then the Division Bench observed in paragraph 6 that:
"In fact, as stated above, the State Government had taken a favourable decision on 19-4-1988 after due examination of the matter in the light of the memoranda of the Government of India dated 14-4-1987 and 16-4-1987. Had the decision been given effect to immediately thereafter, the retired employees of the State Government also would have got the monetary benefits of the revision/ rationalisation with effect from 1-1-1986 itself as in the case of retired employees of Government of India."
10. The Division Bench refers and it is accepted that in the past there is no issue that the State Government had followed the same pattern as fixed by the Government of India and in the circumstances to make a departure by denying pensionery benefits between 1986 to 1989, there was no justification.
11. The Division Bench could have spelt out reliefs. Firstly, it could have by a writ of mandamus directed the State Government that the pensionary benefits, in context, would be made available from 1-1-1986. Secondly, it could remit the matter to the State Government to look at the matter afresh in the light of observations made by the High Court and take an appropriate decision. The Division Bench chose the second option.
12. The second option, perhaps, gave the State Government a misplaced latitude. It took advantage of the grace shown by the High Court to reconsider the matters and arrive at a fair decision in terms with equity. But, the State Government retained its decision that pensioners would be deprived of their benefits between 1-1-1986 to 28 February, 1989. The pensioners, thus, lost out on arrears of pension for three years and one quarter. One needs to ask as to how the State Government went about the exercise after the High Court judgment. The State of Bihar filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 209/97 from the judgment of the High Court. The Special Leave petition was dismissed on 20-1-1997. Thereafter, the State of Bihar also filed a review petition before the Supreme Court This was also dismissed. Finding that Mere was no option left except to implement the Court orders, High Court and Supreme Court, and the commitment given to the pensioners of Bihar, the State Government kept the matter hanging for four years. Ultimately, it made an attempt to frustrate both, the judgment of the High Court and orders of the Supreme Court, by enacting the Bihar State Government Employees Revision of Pension, Family Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (Validation and Enforcement) Act, 2001. This Act is an exercise on how to destroy the judgment of Courts established under the Constitution. Instead of making comments on the content of the Act it is best to reproduce it so that the exercise is self explanatory:
(Bihar Act 3, 2001) THE BIHAR STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES REVISION OF PENSION. FAMIL Y PENSION AND DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT GRA TUITY (VALIDATION AND ENFORCEMENT) ACT, 2001.
AN ACT To validate and enforce the revisions of pension, family pension and death-cum-gratuity for Bihar State Government Employees"
Preamble--WHEREAS, the State Cabinet while accepting revision of pay/ pension for State Government employees in principle on the pattern of Central Government had also decided to await report of its Fifth Pay Revision Committee.
AND, WHEREAS, having regard to the financial resource crunch and impact of enforcement of Fifth Pay Revision Commission report in December 1986 involving burden of Rupees several hundred crores due to the agreement made with the employees, the Government of Bihar had passed Resolution No. 806, dated 13th February 1989 constituting Fitment-cum-Pay Revision Committee for granting Central Pay' scale and Pension/Gratuity benefits to the employees notionally with effect from 1st January 1986 but actually with effect from 1st March 1989 and stipulated that arrears will not be paid for the period 1 st January 1986 to 28th February 1989;
AND, WHEREAS, the Government of Bihar had passed and issued Resolution dated 18th December 1989 regarding pay revision and Resolution No. 1853-F for pension and gratuity to employees who retired on or after 1 st January, 1986 and Resolution No. 1854-F for pensionary benefits of employees who retired before 1986, and in each case, express provision was made for granting actual pay/pension revision from 1st March, 1989 and notionally from 1st January, 1986 but excluding arrears between 1st January 1986 to 28th February 1989;
AND, WHEREAS, the cut-off principle adopted as above for pay revision was upheld by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC: No. 511 of 1994 as being consistent with the Constitution of India;
AND. WHEREAS, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowed CWJC No. 2467/1991 and quashed Para 1(1) of Resolution No. 1853 (F) and Para 2(1) of Resolution No. 1854-F meant for pensionary benefits and directed the Government to reconsider the matter, and the Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government in the Supreme Court has, been dismissed on 20th January, 1997 and the Review filed has also been dismissed;
AND, WHEREAS, SLP No. 1672/1999 field by the State Government against order passed in contempt proceedings in MJC No. 1608/1997 has been dismissed due to infructuous;
AND, WHEREAS, CWJC No. 2080/1996 Pertaining to pension arrears had been dismissed by learned Single Judge following the Full Bench Judgment in H. Kujur's case but the said judgment was reversed by a Division Bench of Ranchi Bench of the Patna. High Court following the Judgment of the earlier Division Bench judgment dated the 21st August, 1996 and in the SLP filed by the State Government before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said judgment have been held to be irrelevant in view of the statement made by the respondents for withdrawing the writ petition.
AND, WHEREAS in its judgment dated the 21st August, 1996, the Division of the Patna High Court had observed that the Government could have fixed 1st March, 1989 or date of passing of the impugned Resolution i.e., 19th April, 1990 as the cut-off date but the Government, after fixing 1st January, 1986 on the Central pattern, had no justification to dony the consequential monetary benefits and make the same effective only from 1st March, 1989, and had required the Government to reconsider the matter in accordance with law;
AND, WHEREAS, the State Government after considering the matter, has come to the conclusion that in view of inadequate financial resources, it is not possible to bear the additional financial burden regarding arrears of pension, and that the financial burden is likely to increase substantially due to various writ petitions pending in the High Court for questioning the same cut-off principle with regard to gratuity;
AND, WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has held that financial burden is an important factor in determining cut-off dates;
AND, WHEREAS, due to the complete quashing of Part 1 (1) of Resolution No. 1853-F, an anomaly has arisen as para pertains even to the employees retiring after 1st March, 1989;
AND, WHEREAS, it has become necessary to validate and. Enforce the revision of pension/family pension/gratuity with effect from 1st March 1989 only;
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Bihar in the fifty second year of the Republic of India as follows:--
(1) Short title, extent and Commencement.--(1) This Act, may be called the Bihar State Government Employees' Pension, Family Pension and Gratuity (Validation and Enforcement) Act, 2001.
(2) It shall extended to the whole of the State of Bihar.
(3) It shall be deemed to come into force with effect from Ist March, 1989.
(2) Grant of Revision benefits.--The Resolution No. 1853 (F) and the Resolution No. 1854 (F) of the State Government (Finance Department) issued on dated 19th April, 1990 would be deemed to have been enforced with effect from 1st March, 1989 and Revision benefits contemplated by the said Resolutions would be granted with effect from Ist March, 1989.
(3) Additional relief to existing Pensioners.--(1) The additional relief for existing pensioners as per para 3.1 of State Government (Finance Department) Resolution No. 1854 (F) dated 19th April 1990 and additional amounts of pension accruing under part 4 of the said/Resolution shall be payable w.e.f. Ist March, 1989. However, pension/family pension will be consolidated w.e.f. Ist January, 1986 by adding together:--
(i) the existing pension/existing family pension;
(ii) the existing Dearness relief; and
(iii) additional relief accruing out. of Para 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 and additional amounts of pension accruing out of Para 4 of the said Resolution.
(2) The remaining provisions of the aforesaid two Resolutions pertaining to calculation of amounts would remain as such except that all provisions of aforesaid two Resolutions would be so construed as fixing the cut-off date as 1st March, 1989 and all contrary provisions of the said two Resolutions would be deeded to have been repealed hereby, except that the payments made on account of commutation of pension at revised rates as provided in Para 6 of the Resolution No. 1853 (F) dated 19th April 1990 shall not be recovered.
(4) Validation of Revision of Pension/Gratuity.--Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or Authority the Government Resolutions No. 1853 (F) and 1854 (F) both dated 10th April, 1990 would be deemed to have been enforced from 1 st March, 1989 and the benefits of pension/family pension and gratuity given to the Government employees under the said two Resolutions would be deemed to have been due to the employees w.e.f. 1st March, 1989, only and the said date would be deemed always to have been the cut-off date for the said two Resolutions.
(5) Overriding effect of the Act.--Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment decree or order passed by any Court, Tribunal or Authority and in any other law for the time, being in force the provisions of this Act shall prevail and have effect.
(6) Repeal and Savings.--The Bihar State Government Employees' Revision of Pension, Family Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (Validation and Enforcement) Ordinance, 2000 (Bihar Ordinance No. 3, 2000) is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done on any action taken in the exercise of any power conferred by or under the said Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken in exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act, were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action taken.
fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls jktsUnz izlkn] ljdkj ds lfpr
13. The question which has to be answered is whether this could be done ? Have there been occasions in the past when a similar exercise may have been taken by a State to nullify a judgment of the High Court and the Supreme Court by legislative powers?
14. There is no issue on the aspect that the Legislature has the power and it is within its legislative competence to destroy the subject itself by legislation, unless the Constitution prevents it. If this were done then anything which is ancilliary or subsidiary will go with the subject. In the present case the subject is pension. If the State has the power to destroy the subject of pensions granted to retired State employees, than, perhaps it may resort to the exercise it may have undertaken.
15. If the State does not have the power to destroy this legal rights which has accrued to a Government employee to receive salary and consequential pension, then the arrears of pension is no less but pension. Further after the High Court has rendered its judgment to adjudicate on the right of the parties, which judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the arrears of pension is beyond the legislative power of the State Legislature. Between the doctrine of ultra vires which is available to the superior judiciary under the Constitution to nullify the acts of legislature, and to restore to the citizen his adjudicated rights, the power adopted by the legislature of Bihar suffers from vice. And if permitted to get away it will be an unending exercise that the High Court will adjudicate and the Supreme Court may affirm the decision of the High Court, yet the citizen will be left to the mercy of the State Government to be reduced to a naught by a Legislative Act. Are there precedents on this?
16. The Life Insurance Corporation after having arrived at a settlement with its employees under industrial adjudication procedures for the grant of bonus to Class III and IV employees, which bonus was approved by the Central Government, arranged to unsettle the settlement in having enacted the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The result was that this legislation breached the settlement which had been arrived under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The exercise to bring in regulations to destroy a settlement was nullified by the decision of the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Calcutta High Court to rule that such legislative acts tred upon judicial power (1978) 2 SCC 50-Madan Mohan Pathak and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr..
17. In the matter of S.R Bhagwat and Ors. v. State of Mysore, (1995) 6 SCC 16 : S.R. Bhagwat and Ors. v. State of Mysore, consequent upon a decision of the High Court of Karnataka providing relief to certain promotees of the State Civil Services, the judgment was attempted to be nullified by the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regiulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973. The result of this enactment was that employees were deprived of their arrears of pay for the period prior to actual promotion. The Supreme Court ruled that the benefits of the judgment of Courts having attained finality they could not be read down by an enactment for the purpose of frustrating the decisions of Courts, The judgments on attaining finality were binding upon the State and could not be destroyed by a legislative measure.
18. On behalf of the State of Bihar the following cases were cited.
(i) AIR 1944 Federal Court - 1
(ii) AIR 1941 Privy Council - 16
(iii) AIR 1961 Supreme Court - 1486
(iv) AIR 1962 Supreme Court 945
(v) AIR 1962 Supreme Court - 1517 and
(vi) AIR 1972 Supreme Court - 2205
19. As no attempt was made to distinguish, the cases in their applicability to issues before the Court, this part has been left to the Court.
20. In the first case which was cited in re-Piare Dusadh and Ors. v. Emperor, far from aiding the case of the Government the case is against it. This case is on the proposition that a constitutional authority, at that time the Governor General under the Act, 1935 can constitute special Courts by proper Ordinance and in trial of special cases exclude material provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. There was no exercise by the Ordinance so as to be an attempts exercise judicial power. This case was mis-placed
(ii) The case in re Maharaja Sris Chandra Nandy and Anr. v. Rakhalananda Thakur and Ors., is not applicable to any issue with which the Court is ceased of.
(iii) The case cited in re Mt. Jadao Bahuji v. The Municipal Committee, Khandwa and Anr., also does not apply to the issue before this Court. In the case cited the proposition decided was that the validating Act being completely within the powers of the Governor, could remove retrospectively the defect in the earlier Act. Though it reimposed the tax from the date of the earlier Act, it took care to impose the tax for a previous period. The legislation which was impugned, it was observed by the Supreme Court, do not need support of the proviso. The Supreme Court held that subsequent Validating Act was, therefore, within the powers of the Governor, and was a valid piece of legislation. This case was examining an exercise of subsequent legislation removing the defect in an earlier legislation. This case is not about nullifying a judgment by legislation. This case is also mis-placed.
(iv) In the matter relating to, The State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose and Ors., a judgment of the High Court relating to the Cuttack Municipality would have repercussion on other Municipalities of Orissa, May be that judgment of the High Court in the context of Cuttack Municipality may be correct but its repercussions were to affect the conduct of elections in other Municipalities. Thus the enactment of the validity ordinance. This judgment is not applicable to the present case under consideration before this Court.
(v) In the matter of Muhammadbhai Khudabux Chhipa and Anr. etc. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr. etc., the petitioner before the Supreme Court was under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This case was not dealing with any conflict with the judgment of the High Court and/or Supreme Court and a legislation of the Parliament. This was case about legislation known as Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, a subsequent Ordinance of 1961 and the issue examined was on the doctrine of eclipse. This case is not applicable to the present case either.
(vi) The matter of Hari Singh and Ors. v. The Military Estate Officer, Delhi Circle, Delhi Cantt. and Anr., is a familiar case where two procedures for eviction were available, one under private law and another under the public law. The fact that premises could be classified as public premises, the legislation re-enacted as Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was held to be valid and not suffering from any defect under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The earlier legislation was the 1958 Act, This is case of legislative competence to protect public premises by eviction of unauthorised occupants by a summary and a special procedure. This case is also mis-placed.
21. It appears the State Government in Bihar, the respondents, were not sensitive to the issue that once the matter relating to revision on pensions had been examined, accepted that pensions needed an upward revision, the revision should have followed the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission. Further, the issue itself having been adjudicate by the High Court and the Act to deny revision having been negated by a judgment of the High Court, this should have been the end of the matter. Thereafter, after the High Court's judgment had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the adjudication attained finality. Yet to persue the matter to unsettle matters settled at the forum of the highest Court of the nation, is disrespect to the affirmation by the highest Court and the Constitution of India. Besides, cutting corners and saving monies on the pensions of retired persons is not exactly a graceful gesture by the State. Other wasteful expenditure needs to be pruned. The petitioners suggest that the expenditure on a jumbo ministry needs to be examined for savings. This is upto the Government. But, a criticism from an underdog like the pensioner cannot be avoided.
22. The class of pensioners who have been affected would like to remind the Government of Bihar as to what a retired employees pension is? The status of pensionary benefits has been the subject-matter of pronouncements by the highest Court of the land, Pensionary rights given to pensioners is a valuable right. It is a right of property, AIR 1970 SC 1409 : Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar. Micro-classification by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable criterion denying revised pension benefits to those retiring after a certain date while depriving the benefits to those retiring prior to that date was held to be violative of the equality clause, AIR 1983 SC : D.N. Nakara v. Union of India. Pension was held to be a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice as a retirement benefit in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age, (Supra). Then, in the context of the present controversy and the issue before the Court in the present case, the Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the High Court Thus, the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission on the revision of the pensions need to be put into execution. The judgment of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 20-1-1997, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 209 of 1997 : State of Bihar and Anr. v. Bihar Pensioner Samaj.
22. The legislation attempted by the Government of Bihar known as the Bihar State Government Employees Revision of Pension, Family Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (Validation and Enforcement) Act, 2001 enacted only for the purpose of frustrating, sidetracking and avoiding the decision of the High Court and the order of the Supreme Court affirming the decision is illegal, discriminatory and mala fide in law. This legislation offends the equality clause of the Constitution and is otherwise arbitrary. It is declared as ultra vires to the Constitution of India and otherwise disrespects settled decisions of the Supreme Court.
23. These are matters of pensions. The State Government needs to realise that those who were entitled to receive the revised pensionary benefits with effect from 1986, have added on sixteen years to their retirement age. Some pensioners may have died. A class of family pension benefits holders is increasing their numbers day by day. Let these pensioners; and of those who have died their heirs as family pension holders receive their arrears, now, without delay, Let the arrears be paid to those who are entitled to it with current rate of interest announced by the Government of India on provident fund accounts at the rate of nine and a half percent with effect from 1st January, 1986. The arrears of revised pension be paid before the close of the financial year, that is, on or before 31st March, 2003. The interest on the arrears be paid during the next financial year in four installments at the end of every quarter.
24. In a matter like this, when notice was formally issued to the Advocate General, Bihar, on 5 August, 2002, as the vires of the State enactment had been challenged, the absence of the Advocate General during hearings was unfortunate.
25. The writ petition succeeds with costs.