Rajasthan & ANR Vs. Amrit Lal Gandhi
& Ors  INSC 17 (10 January 1997)
VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL KIRPAL,
common question of law which arises in these appeals by special leave relates
to the date with effect from which the revised pension is to be paid to the
teachers of the Jai Narayan Vyas University and Mohan Lal Sukhadia University who had retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990.
the facts in these appeals are similar, for the purpose of this judgment. We
need only refer to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 9710-9717 of 1995 and S.L.P.
(C) No. 19231 of 1996 which arise from the judgment dated 30.8.1994 of the
Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 115/1993 which
considered the rival contentions of the parties on merit.. The said judgment
has been followed by the High Court while allowing the writ petition from which
Civil Appeal No. 9718 of 1995 arises.
1962, Jodhpur University Act, 1962 was promulgated.
the teaching staff of the University contributory provident fund rules were
framed and there was no pension scheme which was applicable to them.
appears that the University Grant Commission in 1983 constituted a committee
known as Mehrotra Committee to examine the structure of emoluments and also the
conditions of service of the University and College teachers.
Committee submitted its report in 1986, containing various recommendations. One
of the recommendations related to extending pension-cum-gratuity scheme to the
teachers of Universities and colleges.
to the said recommendations, resolutions were passed in 1986 by the Syndicate
of University of Jodhpur (now known as Jai
Narayan Vyas University) and approved by the University
Senate for the introduction or pensionary scheme in the University. According
to this scheme, option was to be given to the university employees to opt
either for contributory provident fund or for pension in lieu of the provident
fund. Draft rules providing for payment of pension were also approved.
proposed scheme had financial implications, the University had to seek the
approval of the Government. The Education Department of the Rajasthan
Government, vide its letter dated 16.4.191, informed the Vice-chancellors of the
Rajasthan University, Jaipur, Jodhpur University, Jodhpur, M.L. Sukhadia
University, Udaipur, Ajmer University, Ajmer and Kota Open University, Kota
that the State Government had decided to introduce the pension scheme in the
Universities of the State W.E.F. 1.1.1990. It is pursuant thereto that the
cabinet of the Jodhpur University on 24.4.1991 approved the resolutions of the Syndicate and
the Senate providing for the introduction of the pension scheme. Thereafter
Pension Regulations 1990 and General Provident Fund Regulations 1990 were
framed and on 3.8.1991 options were invited from all persons who were in the
service of the University of Jodhpur on or after 1.1.1990 to give their options
whether they wanted to be covered by the Provided Fund Regulations or desired
to be covered by the Pension Regulations of 1990.
several writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Rajasthan. Two writ
petitions were filed by the erstwhile teachers of the Rajasthan University who had retired prior to 1.1.1986 while eight writ
petitions were filed by those who had retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990.
Single Judge of the High Court allowed all the aforesaid writ petitions and
directed that the revised pension scheme should be made applicable to all the petitioners
including those who had retired prior to 1.1.1986. Appeals were then filed
before the Division Bench which, vide judgment dated 30.8.1994. held that the
revised pension scheme should be made applicable to only those employees who
had retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990.
already noticed above, the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was
followed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3489 of 1993 filed by the retired
university teachers of the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur from which Civil Appeal No. 9718 of 1995 arises.
behalf of the appellants, main arguments were addressed by Shri Tapas Ray, Sr.
learned counsel in C.A. 9718 of 1995. He referred to the
observations of the High Court to the effect that the Mehrotra Committee had
made its recommendations in 1986 and the Syndicate and Senate of the University
had approved of the grant of pension to those employees who had retired after
1.1.1986, and there was no reason as to why the Pension Regulations should have
been made applicable with effect from 1.1.1990. It was contended by Shri Ray
that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Pension Regulations which were
framed and were made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1990 in view of the decision of the
State of Rajasthan contained in its letter dated
further submitted that the date, as to when pension scheme was to be made
applicable, was a policy matter. The Government having decided, as a matter of
policy, that all the Universities in Rajasthan were to introduce the Pension w.e.f.
1.1.1990 the said decision could not, it was submitted, be challenged.
Ray drew our attention to the decisions of this Menon and others, (1994) 4 SCC
68 and contended that the High Court fell in error in not following the ratio
of the aforesaid decisions in which it was clearly held that a particular
cut-off date could be fixed while granting pensionary benefits.
Behari case (supra), the Calcutta Corporation had in force a provident fund
scheme. A demand was raised in 1977 for the introduction of a pension scheme. A
three member committee was constituted and pursuant to its recommendations,
which were accepted by the Government with some modifications, Pension
Regulations were framed in 1982.
was given to these Regulations on and from 1.4.1977.
fixing of the date of 1.4.1977 was challenged by some of the members of the
Calcutta Municipal Corporation who had retired prior to 1.4.1977. The Calcutta
High Court allowed the writ petitions by holding that the date of 1.4.1977,
with effect from when the Pension Regulations were to come into effect, was non
est and void. While allowing the appeals, and dismissing the writ petitions,
this Court examined the reasons why the date 1.4.1977 has been fixed and then
observed as follows:
it is open to the State or to the Corporation, as the case may be, to change
the conditions of service unilaterally. Terminal benefits as well as pensionary
benefits constitute conditions of service. The employer has the undoubted power
to revise the salaries and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary
benefits. The power to specify a date from which the revision of pay scales or
terminal benefits/pensionary benefits, as the case maya be, shall take effect
is a concomitant of the said power.
as such date is specified in a reasonable manner, i.e., without bringing about a
discrimination between similarly situated persons, no interference is called
for by the court in that behalf." In P.N. Menon case (supra) the question
again arose with regard to fixing of cut-off date for payment of gratuity and
pension. In that case the cut-of date, which was fixed, was 30.9.1977. While
allowing the appeals and repelling the challenge to the fixation of the said
date, it was observed at pages 73-74 as under:
the Government or an authority, which can be held to be a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, frames a scheme for persons who have
superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible
to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the dates of
superannuation. As such any revised scheme in respect of post- retirement
benefits, if implemented with a cut-off date, which can be held to be
reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need
not be held to be invalid. It shall not amount to "picking out a date from
the hat, as was said by this Court in the case of D.R. Nim "V. Union of India in connection with fixation of
seniority. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut-off date becomes imperative
because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available
with the Government." It again reiterated at page 75 that "not only
in matters of revising the pensionary benefits, but even in respect of revision
of scales of pay, a cut-off date on some national or reasonable basis, has to
be fixed for extending the benefits".
the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the present case, we find no
justification for the High Court having substituted the date of 1..1986 in lieu
evident that for introducing a pension scheme, which envisaged financial
implications, approval of the Rajasthan Government was required. In the letter
of 16.4.1991. written to the Vice-Chancellors of different universities of
Rajasthan, it was stated as follows:
per the direction in regard to the aforesaid subject, the State Government has
decided to introduce Pension Scheme in the Universities of the State w.e.f.
1.1.1990. In this regard the State Legislature has passed University Pension
Rules and General Provident Fund Rules.
by enclosing a copy of University Pension Regulations and General Provident
Fund Regulations with this letter, it is requested that by obtaining approval
of the competent body or syndicate of the University, these Regulations be
implemented in the University together and necessary information regarding
implementation be intimated." The Syndicate and forwarded their
recommendations in 1986, did not contain a specific date with effect from which
the pension scheme was to be made applicable. Their recommendations were
subject to approval. The approval was granted by the Government, after the
State Legislature had passed University Pension Rules and General Provident
Fund Rules. The Government had stated in its affidavit before the High Court
that the justification of the cut-off date of 1.1.1990 was "wholly
economic". It cannot be said that the paying capacity is not a relevant or
valid consideration while fixing the cut-off date. The University could, in
1991, validly frame Pension Regulations to be made applicable prospectively.
It, however, chose to give them limited retrospectively so as to cover a larger
number of employees by taking into account the financial impact of giving retrospective
operation to the Pension Regulations.
decided that employees retiring on or after 1.1.1990 would be able to exercise
the option of getting either pension or provident fund. Financial impact of
making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing
a cut-off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was
fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in
allowing the writ petitions and substituting the date of 1.1.1986 for 1.1.1990.
Anil B. Diwan, Sr. Advocate appearing in Civil Appeal Nos. 9710-9717 of 1995
for respondent No.1, contended that the University had asked for extension of
time to implement the judgment and must be regarded as having accepted the decision
specially when the University had not come in appeal and, therefore, whatever
be the decision of this court on the question of law, the benefit of the
judgment should be given to his clients who had retired between 1.1.1986 to
true that the University has not filed any appeal but the State of Rajasthan
has challenged the correctness of the decision of the High Court and it was
represented at the bar, on behalf of the appellant, that only the options had
been invited and the judgment had not been given effect to and no pension has
been given to those employees who had retired between 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1990.
Counsel for the University stated that as the State of Rajasthan had a filed an appeal, therefore
the University chose not to file one of it's own. We, therefore, do not see any
reason as to why this decision should not be applicable to all the employees
who had retired prior to 1.1.1990 as it cannot be held that the University had
accepted the correctness of the High Court's decision.
the aforesaid discussion, it follows that the policy decision of the
Universities, making the Pension Regulations applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1990 has not
been shown to be arbitrary or invalid. These appeals are, accordingly, allowed
and the judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions filed
by the respondents are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.