Gujarat High Court
Indumati A. Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 4 September, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1987)1GLR389
JUDGMENT A.P. Ravani, J.
1. The, petitioner is a widow. Her husband, Shri A.N. Patel died on December 29, 1963 while serving as Deputy Secretary to Government, Legal Department. The petitioner being widow of the deceased employee was entitled to family pension, as per the revised Pension Rules, 1950. Thereafter the aforesaid pension rules were amended by Government Resolution dated January 1, 1972. As per the original pension rules family pension was available to the widow and other dependents of an employee only for a period of ten years after the death of the employee. However, by the resolution dated January 1, 1972, the pension benefits were made available till life time of the widow. For being entitled to pension beyond the period of ten years, the widow of the employee was required to contribute two months' salary. But this condition has been later on deleted by a resolution dated October 17, 1977. The aforesaid resolution dated January 1, 1972 has been made applicable to all regular employees on pensionable establishment, temporary or permanent, who were in service on or after 1st June. 1971. This particular part of the resolution, i.e. the cut off date of 1st June, 1971, is challenged by the petitioner.
2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no rational basis whatsoever for making further classification of the dependents of pensioners by introducing the invidious criterion of employees "who were in service on or after June 1, 1971". The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India . In paragraph 49 of the judgment the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
The words 'who were in service on 31st March, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date' excluding the date for commencement of revision are words of limitation introducing the mischief and are vulnerable as denying equality and introducing an arbitrary fortuitous circumstance can be served without impairing the formula. Therefore, there is absolutely no difficulty in removing the arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme and it can be easily severed.
A similar question with regard to family pension scheme arose in the ease of Smt. Poonumal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . In paragraph 7 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed to the effect that pension is a right, not bounty or gratuitous payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules. Therefore, any one entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right. After referring to its earlier decision the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Where the Government servant rendered service, to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised, the widow and the dependent minors would equally be entitled to family pension as a matter of right. In fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. Relevant Rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate.
Thus, the legal position is well settled. Pensioners constitute a class by themselves. No further classification can be made by introducing a criterion of "being in service" on a particular date and "retiring there-after". Therefore, it is clear that provision regarding cut off date by insertion of words "who were in service on or after 1st June, 1971" is discriminatory. This phrase introduces an invidious discrimination and creates two artificial classes of "dependents of pensioners who were in service on or after 1st June, 1971" and "dependents of pensioners who retired prior to June 1, 1971". For creating such an artificial classification there is no reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. As laid down by the Supreme Court, pension is a matter of right. The pensioner or his dependents can claim pension, not as a bounty or grace, but as a compensation for the service rendered by the employee. Viewed from this angle the classification sought to be made by inserting the cut off date June 1, 1971 has no rational nexus with the underlying object behind payment of pension.
3. In the result the petition is required to be allowed. It is hereby dsclared that the cut-off date, namely, June 1, 1971 prescribed in the Government Resolution dated January 1, 1972, produced at annexure-A to the petition, is illegal and void as the same is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to claim the benefits flowing from the resolution as if the words "who were in service on or after 1st June, 1971" were never there in the resolution. The respondents are directed to compute the amount of pension payable to the petitioner in the light of the principles laid down in this judgment latest before December 31, 1986.
Rule made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.