Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Having considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter and keeping in view the fact that the Courts have to show more tolerance in the case of under-inclusive classification (the present being such a case) and that burden of proof while attacking the vires of a statute on the anvil of Article 14 lies with the petitioner, we would State that we are not satisfied if a ease has been made out to say that selection of 26th January, 1950 as the cut-off date for the purpose at hand is arbitrary. The plea of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. But then, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is said to be the only living person to claim the aforesaid benefit and is aged about 96 years and is presently struggling hard and has been even attacked by paralysis and was undergoing treatment for brain haemorrhage in the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital even last month, as would appear from her petition filed on 4-2-1992 (Misc. Case No. 890 of 1992), we arc satisfied that the present is preeminently a fit case where, to advance the cause of social justice, she should be given pension of Rs.500/- per month with effect from 26th January, 1992. This should be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and pension at this rate should be continued to be paid to the petitioner till she is alive. We have passed this order bearing in mind the decision in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 165, wherein the Apex Court gave various directions to the State Governments in the interest of administration of justice, which indicates that in appropriate cases the higher Courts can give such direction as according to them is called for to secure the ends of justice, which includes social justice, in the context of that case.