Telangana High Court
Manyam Venkata Rama Rao And 49 Others vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 20 December, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION Nos.14315, 14588, 14641, 15944, 18962 OF 2021,
42532 of 2022 and 9131 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together, heard and being disposed of by this common order.
2) Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel, representing Ms.Vedula Chitralekha, Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, Sri M.Ramgopal Rao and Sri N.Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners respectively, and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.
3) The main grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is to direct the respondents to implement the recommendations of Pay Revision Commission Report-2020 extending the enhanced gratuity and difference of Earned Leave salary to the petitioners, who retired between 01.07.2018 and 01.04.2020, on par with the pensioners, who are drawing the enhanced gratuity/encashment of earned leave w.e.f.01.04.2020.
4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners respectively have submitted that the petitioners herein have worked in various departments of the State Government and High Court and have retired on attaining the 2 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch age of superannuation on various dates, subsequent to 01.07.2018 and prior to 31.03.2020. Further, at the time of retirement, the terminal benefits like Leave Encashment, Retirement Gratuity, etc. were paid to the petitioners basing on the payscales prevailing by that time and also they are in receipt of pension basing on the salary drawn by them at the time of their retirement, in accordance with Rules. It is further submitted that the Government of Telangana has constituted its First Pay Revision Commission (in short 'Pay Commission') vide G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 18.03.2015, and the Pay Commission has submitted its report on 31.12.2020. After considering the entire matter, the Government has decided to implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission and accordingly issued several GOs including G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021. As per the said G.O., the notional benefit has been given to the employees, who retired subsequent to 01.07.2018 and prior to 31.03.2020. The notional benefit has been given from 01.07.2018 and monetary benefit from 01.04.2020. Further, the revised consolidated basic pension is also given effect from 01.07.2018 notionally and the monetary benefit was allowed from 01.04.2020. However, at para 4(e) thereof, it has been clarified that no dues of retirement gratuity/Encashment of Earned Leave was allowed in case of employees, who retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 11.06.2021, the maximum limit of retirement gratuity has been raised from 12 lacs to 16 3 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch lacs and the method of calculation of gratuity remains the same as per G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 30.01.1999. It is further submitted that though the Revised Pay Scales (RPS) were given effect from the month of March, 2020, it has been notionally extended w.e.f.01.07.2018 for the purpose of calculation of pension/family pension. The commutation value of pension has already been permitted under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021, whereby the commuted value of pension of an employee will be effected consequent upon the implementation of the PRC. Further, all the petitioners herein have retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020 and they have already received gratuity and also leave encashment and also commuted value of 40% pension. Therefore, under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021, they are entitled to have the benefit of revision of commuted value of pension basing on the revised pay. However, basing on the pay revision w.e.f.01.07.2018, the differential amount was denied to the petitioners in respect of those (2) retirement benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment. Therefore, the action of the respondents is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature in respect of the employees retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020 in the matter of two retirement benefits received by them. Insofar as gratuity and leave encashment are concerned, benefit of pay revision has not been extended to them whereas the said benefit w.e.f.01.07.2018 is extendable for the purpose of pension which has already been received by them prior to 31.03.2020. The 4 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch benefits due to retired employees will have to be settled by giving effect to the PRC from the date the pay revision is given notional effect i.e.08.07.2018. It is further submitted that as per para 4(e) and para 8.2 of G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021, issued by the State Government, the benefit of difference in respect of retirement gratuity/encashment of earned leave is disallowed in case of employees who retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020, which is discriminatory, violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that in the past GO (P) 47, dated 15.02.1999, was issued whereby PRC-1993 was given effect from 01.01.1993 with monetary benefit from 01.04.1993 and the same has been extended even to the persons those who retired from 01.07.1992 and 01.01.1993. Similarly, G.O.Ms.No.334, dated 14.09.1993 was also issued extending the benefit of PRC for encashment of Earned Leave/Privilege Leave on retirement. Similarly, G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 24.02.1994, was issued whereby notional pay fixed in PRC-1993 has been allowed for payment of Encashment of Earned Leave to the employees, who retired/died between 01.07.1992 and 31.03.1993. Further, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DS Nakara v. Union of India 1 and All Munipur Pensioners Association v. State of Manipur 2, that all the retired persons belong to one class and any classification/cut-off date 1 1983 (1) SCC 305 2 2020 (14) SCC 625 5 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch with reference to them in the matter of payment of retirement benefits cannot be discriminatory and unrealistic. It is further submitted that when they are entitled for three benefits like commutation of pension, gratuity and leave encashment and have received the same between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020, it is arbitrary to give notional benefit of PRC w.e.f.01.07.2018 only in respect of one of those benefits i.e. commutation of pension and leaving out the other benefits like gratuity and leave encashment unaffected by the revision. Therefore, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of pay revision also to the extent of revision of Retirement Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave to the petitioners, who retired prior to 31.03.2020, basing on the pay revised under G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021 and pay the differential amount to the petitioners by setting aside para 4(e) and 8.2 of G.O. 4.1 It is further contended that as per para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021, the pension of the employees, who retired after 01.07.2018 has to be calculated as per the pay fixed in RPS-2020. Hence, the Government cannot take a dual stand and cannot create two classes/groups of employees in allowing the difference of gratuity and Earned Leave Encashment. It is further submitted that all the petitioners have retired after 01.07.2018 and were drawing pay under 10th PRC. The implementation of 11th PRC is w.e.f.01.07.2018. Since 11th PRC Report was not submitted by the time of retirement of the petitioners, the 6 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch encashment of Earned Leave was sanctioned based on the last pay drawn under 10th PRC. But, as 11th PRC came into force w.e.f.01.07.2018, pay of the petitioners has to be fixed under 11th PRC. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced/difference amount on the eanchsed Earned Leave due to fixing of the pay under 11th PRC. It is further submitted that the Pay Commission has submitted its report on 31.12.2020, the earlier PRC date ended on 30.06.2018 and the 1st PRC of Telangana State has to be implemented from 01.07.2018. Therefore, the policy decision taken by the Government in not allowing the revision of retirement gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioners, who have retired during the period 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020, while allowing the same to the employees, who retired after 01.04.2020, is arbitrary, unreasonable, unlawful, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the cut-off date i.e.01.04.2020 prescribed by the Government as a policy decision is not in fair manner. Reliance has also been placed on:
1) Un-reported judgment rendered by High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in W.P. No.8985 of 2011, dated 09.05.2014, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.13140-13151/2015 dated 11.10.2017.
2) P. Lal and others v. Union of India and another 3; 3 AIR 1973 SC 1088 7 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch
3) Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd., v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi 4;
4) T.Hemanth Kumar v. Telangana State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., 5;
5) Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtra 6;
6) Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Emps. Assn. 7; and
7) Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India [Transfer Case (Civil) Nos.22 with 23 of 2021 & batch.]
5) Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended that initially, the pension and other benefits were settled to the petitioners based on the pay drawn by them at the time of their retirement and after implementation of first PRC of Telangana State, their pension was revised based on their entitlement of pay etc. w.e.f.01.07.2018. The 1st Pay Commission has submitted its report on 31.12.2020 and after examination of the said recommendations, the Government has taken a decision to implement the RPS to the employees and pensioners after due consultations with the respective stakeholders and issued several Government Orders for effective 4 2022 SCC OnLine 1247 5 2023 (6) ALD 546 (TS) 6 2023 AIR (SC) 792 7 2009 AIR SCW 7667 8 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch implementation of RPS and revised pensionary benefits. Further, it is the policy decision taken by the Government to allow monetary benefits on revision of pension of RPS-2020 w.e.f.01.04.2020. Therefore, there is no dual role in the decision of the Government as alleged by the petitioners. Further, there is no arbitrariness in fixing a cut-off date i.e.01.04.2020 for allowing monetary benefit, as the Government has to take into consideration the financial implications also. It is further contended that even in earlier pay revisions, the effective date of revision of pension was different from the date of allowing monetary benefit. The encashment of Earned Leave after retirement is based on the pay actually drawn on the date of retirement. Here, the petitioners have not actually drawn the revised pay as per the RPS-2020, but are deemed to have drawn the revised pay as fixed in RPS-2020 scales since the pay fixation in revised pay scales is notional from 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2020. Further, due to financial implications, the Government has taken the policy decision to pay the arrears arising on account of difference of pension, by way of instalments and also to allow the monetary benefits to the employees and pensioners in RPS and revision of pensions. Learned Special Government Pleader has further contended that the subject matter of these Writ Petitions pertains to the periodical enhancement of the pensionary benefits to pensioners of the State Government along with the periodical pay revisions given to the serving employees as per the recommendations made 9 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch by the Pay Commission constituted by the State Government. The decisions taken and the Orders issued by the Government are after due consideration of the recommendations of Pay Commission and the financial implications on the State Exchequer. It is well settled that the Courts cannot compel the Government to change its policy in matters involving expenditure. On this ground alone, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that there is nothing in the writ petitions to prove that the decision of the Government in the impugned orders is arbitrary or discriminatory or beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Government. It has always been the policy of the State Government to implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission with regard to revision of pay scales or pensionary benefits with prospective monetary effect, though the notional benefit is generally given from an anterior date, keeping in view the gap in the date of submission of the report of the Pay Commission and issuance of the GOs thereon, after due consultation and consideration of the various financial implications involved. However, notwithstanding the heavy burden on the tax payers' money and the earlier precedents, the State Government has decided to give retrospective monetary effect w.e.f.01.04.2020 though the actual orders of pay revision or revision of pensionary benefits were given in the month of June, 2021. The pay revisions always tend to have more benefit to employees who are in service or who joined on or after the said date of revision and they would 10 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch not naturally apply to the employees who retired earlier to the date of such revision and the same is incidental to revisions and cannot be viewed as discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the case laws cited by the petitioners are totally out of context and cannot be applied to the case of the petitioners. Further, this Hon'ble Court, in its order dated 17.04.2014 passed in W.P.Nos.39090 of 2022 & batch, has set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioners therein allowing them the monetary benefits from the date of effective date of RPS-2010 instead of cut-off date of allowing monetary benefit and dismissed the Original Applications and the petitioners herein stand similar to them and therefore prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions. Reliance has been placed on State of A.P. v. AP Pensioners Association 8; State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjee 9; and unreported common order passed by the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.39090 of 2012 & batch.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective parties.
7) A perusal of the material on record discloses that the 1st Pay Revision Commission was constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.86, General Administration (Spl.A) Department, dated 18.03.2015, and the said Pay 8 (2005) 3 SCC 161 9 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1071 11 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch Commission has submitted its report on 31.12.2020. Thereafter, the Government has decided to implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission and issued G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021, G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 15.06.2021, wherein it was decided to extend the notional benefit from 01.07.2018 and monetary benefit from 01.04.2020. Further, as per para 4(e) of G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021, it has been clarified that no difference on retirement gratuity/Encashment of Earned Leave shall be allowed in case of employees, who retired between 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2020.
8) For better adjudication of the matter, para 4(e) and 8.1 of G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 11.06.2021, are reproduced hereunder:
"4 (e) No difference on Retirement Gratuity/Encashment of Earned Leave shall be allowed in case of employees who retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020.
8.1 The employees who retired from 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020 are eligible for revision of their pay in the Revised Pay Scales, 2020, notionally as per the orders issued in the G.O. sixth read above. As such, the pensions of these employees have to be revised notionally based on the revised pay in Revised Pay Scales, 2020 and monetary benefit should be allowed from 01.04.2020 only."
9) From the above, it is thus clear that the employees, who retired between 01.07.2018 and 31.03.2020 are entitled for revision of pay notionally. As such, the pension of those employees has to be revised notionally based on the pay revised in RPS-2020 and monetary benefit should be allowed from 01.04.2020 only and further no difference on 12 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch retirement gratuity/encashment of Earned Leave shall be allowed to the pensioners on the pension notionally fixed.
10) Now, the issue that falls for consideration of this Court in these writ petitions is 'whether the petitioners, who retired during the period 11.07.2018 and 31.03.2020, and whose pension has been fixed notionally based on the revised pay in RPS-2020, are entitled for monetary benefit arising on account of difference on retirement gratuity/encashment of Earned Leave?'
11) It is to be seen that due to financial implications, the Government has taken a policy decision to pay the arrears arising on account of difference of pension by way of instalments and also to allow the monetary benefits to the employees and pensioners by duly fixing a cut-off date. The said decision was taken and consequential orders were issued by the Government after due consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission and the financial implications on the State Exchequer. It is well settled law that the Courts shall not compel the Government to change its policy norms involving expenditure. It is purely the policy decision of the State Government whether to implement the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission with regard to revision of pay scales or pensionary benefits with prospective or retrospective monetary effect and the same cannot be interfered with by this Court 13 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Supreme Court in its several judgments.
12) In Anjana Bhattacharjee's case (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paras 19 to 22, has held as under:
"19. In the aforesaid decision this Court after considering the earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Punjab v. Boota Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 733 and State of Punjab v. J.L. Gupta, (2000) 3 SCC 736, it is specifically observed and held that for the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered arbitrary.
20. In the subsequent decision in Bihar Pensioners Samaj (supra), the decision in the case of Amar Nath Goyal (supra) is followed and it is observed and held that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while introducing a pension scheme on revised basis. It is further observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.
21. While applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the instant case before us, the cut-off date has been fixed as 01.01.2009 on a very valid ground i.e., financial constraint. Therefore, the High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule 3 (3) of the Pension Rules, 2009 being arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution.
22. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court striking down Rule 3 (3) of the Tripura State civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. However, it is observed that as respondent No.1 has already been paid the arrears from the date of her retirement pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the same shall not be recovered from her. However, striking down 14 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch of Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 by the impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed and set aside. The present appeal is accordingly allowed...."
12.1) Similarly, in A.P. Pensioners' Association case (referred supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"35. In State of Punjab v. Boota Singh 10, it was stated:
"7. On merits we find that the retirement benefits which are claimed by the respondent are benefits which are conferred by subsequent orders/notifications. Therefore, persons who retired after coming into force of these notifications and orders are governed by different rules of retirement than those who retired under the old rules and were governed by the old rules. The two categories of persons, who retired, were governed by two different sets of rules. They cannot, therefore, be equated. Further, granting of additional benefits has financial also. Hence, specifying the date for the conferment of such additional benefits cannot be considered as arbitrary.
36. In State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal 11 upon consideration of a large number of decisions, this Court opined that the decision of a State to limit the benefits only to employees who retired or died on or after a particular date upon calculating the financial implications thereof was neither irrational nor arbitrary. It was observed:
"28. ....It is trite that, the final recommendations of the Pay Commission were not ipso facto binding on the Government, as the Government had to accept and implement the recommendations of the Pay Commission consistent with its financial position. This is precisely what the Government did. Such an action on the part of the Government can neither be characterized as irrational, nor as arbitrary so as to infringe Article 14 of the Constitution."
37. ....
10 (2000) 3 SCC 733 11 (2005) 6 SCC 754 15 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch
38. The decisions of this Court which have been noticed on D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 12 for the proposition that the financial implication is one of the relevant considerations for the State to deny certain benefits to a class of employees who retire on or before a particular date.
39. It is, therefore, beyond any shadow of doubt that the financial implication is a relevant criterion for the State Government to determine as to what benefits can be granted pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations made by PRC. PRC also said that while revision of pay shall take effect from 1-7-1998, the monetary benefit would be payable only from 1-4-1999. If monetary benefit was payable only from 1-4-1999, all rights to get the benefits computed on the basis of the revised scale of pay would only be for the purpose of payment of pay with effect from 1-4-1999 or payment of the recurring amount of pension with effect from that date.
40. Clause (4) (sic Rule 4) does not make any exception so far as payment of actual monetary benefit is concerned for the purpose of payment of gratuity or otherwise. Had that been so, the Rule would have stated expressly. On the other hand, SO No.157 dated 16-9-1999 fixed the maximum limit of gratuity under Rule 46 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules with effect from 1-4-1999 only.
41. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the intention of the State was not to grant any benefit towards payment of gratuity even in relation to those employees who had retired in between 1-7-1998 and 31-3-1999. "
12.2) Similar issue fell for consideration of the Division Bench of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.39090 of 2012 and batch wherein vide common order dated 17.04.2014, it has been held as under:
"30. In all the Government Orders, the word used is 'Government Servants' but not 'Pensioners'. If the intention of the Government is to extend the benefits under a particular revision of pay scale, then it might have used the word 'Pensioner'. In such a case, all the applicants acquired the status of 'Pensioners' 12 (1983) 1 SCC 305 16 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch on the date of the revision of pay scales came into force, would be entitled for the benefits. Hence, the Government consciously used the word 'Government Servant' so as to extend the benefits to the Government Servants who retired on a particular date and those who retired after that date, are not eligible for the benefits. There is no ambiguity in the Government Orders as to the persons entitled for the benefits under a particular revision of pay scale."
13) From all the above judgments, it is thus clear that the Government has to accept and implement the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission consistent with its financial condition. Such decision taken by the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory.
14) In view of the above settled proposition of law, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondent Government in fixing cut-off date for extending monetary benefits arising on account of revision of pay scales cannot be interfered with and the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted.
15) Now, coming to the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, in D.S. Nakara case (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the Central Government while paying the pension to one set of retired servants based on the average emoluments during 36 months just preceding retirement, has issued a memo liberalizing the formula for computation of pension to another set of retired servants i.e. those who were in service as on 17 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch 31.03.1979. In such a situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all pensioners have equal right to receive the benefits of liberalized pension scheme and pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro- classified.
15.1) Similarly, in Hemanth Kumar's case (referred supra), the learned Single Judge was dealing with a case where the respondent-Bank has enhanced the pension benefit @ 1.50 times of pension and made the same applicable to those who were on rolls of bank as on 01.04.2020 and retired thereafter and denied the said benefit to those who retired prior to 01.04.2020. In such a situation, the learned Single Judge was weighed with the fact that the very scheme therein itself was meant to provide additional/superannuation benefit to the employees, who already covered under the APCOB 'Employees Performance Incentive cum Contributor Superannuation Benefit Scheme' and therefore the cut off date fixed for extending the enhanced pension does not have any nexus to the object of the scheme and thereby held that they cannot be sustained. 15.2) Similarly, in Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex- Employees Association's case (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the Government has denied to extend the benefit of revision of pay scales to the retired employees while extending the same to the serving employees of Corporation. In such a 18 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the exclusion of retired employees, who retired between 01.01.2006 and 29.03.2010 on achieving their date of superannuation, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15.3) Similarly, in All Manipur Pensioners Association's case (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the Government of Manipur has issued an office memorandum dated 21.04.1999 revising the quantum of pension and made the revision applicable only to those who retired on or after 01.01.1996. In such backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all the pensioners belong to one class, therefore, by such classification/cut-off date the equals are treated as unequals and therefore such a classification which has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension is unreasonable.
16) Having carefully gone through the above referred judgments, this Court, with due respect, is in full agreement in with the ratio laid down in those judgments. But, in all the above judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with application of payscales and pension and was weighed by the object and purpose of revision of payscales/pension whereas in the present case, the Government has fixed cut-off date only for extending the monetary benefit in respect of Encashment of Leave and Gratuity that too for overcoming the financial implications. Further, due 19 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch to fixation of the cut-off date, there is no deviation of object and purpose of revision of payscales/ pension. In the present case, the respondents have not extended the monetary benefit arising on account of difference of Earned Leave salary and Gratuity, which do not have any nexus with the rise in cost of living, which ultimately weighed the Hon'ble Supreme Court in holding the above dicta with regard to pension.
17) In fact, in All Manipur Pensioners Association's case (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to valid classification permissible under Article 16 of the Constitution of India has held as under:
"However, a valid classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice for some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved."
In the instant case, for the purpose of achieving the object of extending the revised payscales/pension to its serving/retired employees, duly balancing the financial implications on the State Exchequer, the Government, has prescribed a cut-off date, for extending the monetary benefits arising on account of enhanced Encashment of Leave and Gratuity, to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, which admittedly do not have any impact on the pension being drawn by them and it also cannot be said 20 PK, J WP Nos.14315_2021&batch that the said action of the respondents is against the object/purpose of revision of payscales and pension. Therefore, the judgments relied by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and no avail to them.
18) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 20 - 12 - 2024 sur/GSP L.R. Copy to be marked