Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The State of Manipur had adopted the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended from time to time. According to the Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1972, a case of a government employee retired in accordance with the provisions of the rules after completing qualifying service of not less than 30 years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at 50% of the average emoluments subject to a maximum of Rs.4500/ per month. It appears that considering the increase in the cost of living, the Government of Manipur decided to increase the quantum of pension as well as the pay of the employees. That the Government of Manipur issued an office memorandum dated 21.4.1999 revising the quantum of pension. However, provided that those Manipur Government employees who retired on or after 1.1.1996 shall be entitled to the revised pension at a higher percentage and those who retired before 1.1.1996 shall be entitled at a lower percentage.
Feeling aggrieved by office memorandum providing two different revised pensions, viz, the higher percentage of revised pension to the government employees who retired on or after 1.1.1996 and the lower percentage of revised pension to those who retired on or before 1.1.1996, the appellant herein – All Manipur Pensioners Association approached the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Manipur by way of Writ Petition (C) No.1455 of 2000. They argued that the purpose of granting the benefit of revised pension is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the date of retirement cannot form the very criterion for classification.
Before the learned Single Judge, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India. The writ petition before the learned Single Judge was opposed by the State Government and the aforesaid classification was sought to be justified solely on the ground that considering the financial constraints of the State and accordingly a decision was taken to extend the benefit of revised pension at certain percentage for the pre1996 pensioners and higher percentage for the post 1996 pensioners. Relying upon the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra), the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held the classification between those pensioners who retired prior to 1996 and those who retired after 1996 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently directed the State Government to pay the revised pension uniformly to all the pensioners irrespective of any cutoff date.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24.3.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 1455 of 2000, the State preferred appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by observing that a classification is permissible and cutoff date can be pressed into service depending on financial resources of the State. It has observed that the cutoff date fixed by the State government as 1.1.1996 for payment of revised pension to pre1996 retirees and post1996 retirees cannot be termed to be unreasonable or irrational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore need not be held to be invalid.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the original petitioners have filed the instant petition before the SC. The SC has upheld the single judge bench judgment of Manipur HC and quashed the judgment of two judge bench. It called such cut off based on retirement date unconstitutional.
86540
103860
630
114
59824