of Punjab & Ors Vs. Amar Nath Goyal &
Ors  Insc 412 (11
K. Sabharwal & B. N. Srikrishna
Civil Appeal Nos. 132/03, 133/03, 1838/03, 1847/03, 902/04, 1061/05, Civil
Appeal No. 4987/05 @ SLP(C) No. 2947/2003, Civil Appeal Nos. 4988-5018 /05 @
SLP (C) Nos. 6855-6886/2003, Civil Appeal Nos. 4985-4986 /05 @ SLP (C) Nos.
12071-12072/2004 and T.C. (Civil) Nos. 58/04 and 41/05. SRIKRISHNA, J.
condoned. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.
group of Special Leave Petitions and Transferred Cases raise the same issue of
law, though the origin of the cases and the paths by which they found their way
to this Court are different. A brief resume of the facts is called for.
Appeal No. 129 of 2003:
respondents are employees of the Government of Punjab who retired during the
period 31.7.1993 to 31.3.1995. They sought the benefit of a circular dated
13.12.1996 under which the State Government employees, who retired or died on
or after 1.4.1995, were entitled to get retirement gratuity/ death gratuity on
the basis of addition of certain portion of the dearness pay to the basic pay.
This benefit was refused to them. The respondents challenged the decision of
the State Government declining them the aforesaid benefit by a group of writ
petitions (numbered CWP No. 4995/97 and others) before the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana. The High Court partially allowed the writ petition and held that
such of the State Government's employees, who had retired on or after 1.7.1993,
were entitled to the higher amount of death gratuity and retirement gratuity
consequent upon the merger of a portion of dearness allowance into the basic
pay. The High Court, however, refused to grant this benefit to employees who
had retired before 1.7.1993.
High Court also directed the State Government and its officers to calculate the
death/ retirement gratuity of the respondents who had retired on or after
1.7.1993 in accordance with the notification dated 13.12.1996. The said
judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is
challenged in this appeal.
Appeal No. 1061 of 2005:
respondents, retired employees of the Education Department of the Government of
Punjab, were superannuated during the period 31.7.1993 to 31.3.1995. They also
sought the benefits flowing from the order of the Government of Punjab dated
13.12.1996 and sought a higher quantum of death-cum-retirement gratuity. These
benefits having been refused to them, they too moved the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana by a Civil Writ Petition (CWP No. 17666/98). This writ petition
was allowed by order dated 3.5.2002 following the judgment in CWP No. 4995/97.
Being aggrieved thereby, the State of Punjab is in appeal.
Appeals @ Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 12071-12072 of 2004:
respondent-employees in this case retired on 28.2.1994 from Postal Department
Service, H.P. Circle i.e. prior to the prescribed
cut-off date of 1.4.1995. He sought the higher amount of death-cum-retirement
gratuity subject to the increased maximum limit under the Office Memorandum
("O.M.") dated 14.7.1995 issued by the Government of India.
O.M. directed that a certain percentage of dearness allowance was to be treated
as part of basic pay for the purpose of calculating the death gratuity and
retirement gratuity in respect of the Central Government employees who retired
after 1.4.1995. However, the Central Government rejected his claim on the
ground that he had retired prior to 1.4.1995. The employee then moved the
Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") (Chandigarh Bench) by his
Original Applications. The CAT directed that the benefit of O.M. dated
14.7.1995 be extended to the employee concerned, on the undertaking that, if
the connected matters pending at the time in the Bombay High Court were to be
adversely decided against him, he would refund the monies with interest.
Union of India moved the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by writ petition CWP
No. 462/03, which was dismissed on the ground that a similar matter was pending
before the Bombay High Court against a decision of the Full Bench of the CAT
(Mumbai Bench), and that the decision given by the Bombay High Court would
decide the rights and contentions of the parties. The Union of India's Civil
Review No. 32/03 was also dismissed on 11.09.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the Union
of India is in appeal.
Appeal No. 132 of 2003:
respondents in this case were employees of the Punjab Government who retired
from service of Municipal Committee, Malerkotla on attaining the age of
superannuation. They retired on different dates, but between 31.10.1993 and
28.2.1994. They were paid gratuity in accordance with the then applicable
rules. The respondents demanded gratuity in accordance with the orders of the
Government of Punjab. This would have given them the benefit of increased
quantum of death gratuity and retirement gratuity pursuant to the merger of
certain percentage of the dearness allowance with the basic pay. This benefit
having been refused to them, they moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court by
their writ petition CWP No. 942/99. This writ petition was also allowed by a
common judgment dated 3.5.2002 rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court
in CWP No. 4995/97. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant-Municipal Committee
is before this Court.
Appeal No. 133 of 2003:
appellants in this case retired from the Education Department of the Government
of Punjab upon attaining the age of superannuation on various dates before
1.7.1993. They claimed the benefit of increased amount of retirement-cum-death
gratuity consequent upon the merger of a portion of dearness allowance with the
basic pay as indicated in the instructions of the State Government dated
13.12.1996, made effective in the case of Government employees who retired or
died on or after 1.4.1995. Their claims were rejected by the State Government.
The employees moved the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by their writ
petition CWP No. 15212/98, which was disposed of following the common judgment
rendered by the High Court in CWP No. 4995/97. The High Court rejected the
claims of this group of employees who had retired prior to 1.7.1993. Hence,
this appeal by the aggrieved employees.
Appeal No. 1838 of 2003:
First Respondent in this case was an employee of the Punjab State Electricity
Board, who retired before the prescribed cut-off date of 1.04.1995. His claim
for increased amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity was similarly rejected by
the Punjab State Electricity Board. His writ petition CWP No. 12260/98 was
allowed following the common judgment in CWP No. 4995/97. The Punjab State
Electricity Board is here in appeal.
Appeal No. 1847 of 2003:
first respondent was an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board who
retired between 1.7.1993 and 31.3.1995. His claim for increased amount of
death-cum-retirement gratuity was similarly rejected by the Electricity Board.
His writ petition CWP No. 12957/98 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
was decided by the common judgment in CWP No. 4995/97. Hence, this appeal by
the Punjab State Electricity Board.
Appeal @ Special Leave Petition No. 2947 of 2003:
appeal is against the judgment in CWP No. 552/99 decided by the common judgment
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 4995/97. The High Court of
Punjab & Haryana took the view that Government employees retiring on or
after 1.7.1993, but before the cut off date of 1.4.1995 would also be entitled
to the gratuity calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Government
of Punjab order dated 13.12.1996. The respondent in this case is an employee of
the Punjab State Electricity Board who had retired during the aforesaid period.
Being aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the Punjab State Electricity
Board is before this Court by way of this appeal.
respondents in this case are all employees of the Central Government in the
Postal Department in the Maharashtra
Circle who had
retired between 1.7.1993 and 31.3.1995. They claimed the benefit of the Central
Government order dated 27.9.1993 read with order dated 14.7.1995, seeking
higher benefits of death-cum-retirement gratuity pursuant to the merger of a
portion of the dearness allowance with basic pay and the consequential raising
of the ceiling on the death cum retirement gratuity amount. Their claims were
refused by the Central Government. They filed Original Applications before the
CAT (Mumbai Bench). The issue as to the validity of the decision of the Central
Government in fixing the cut-off date of 1.4.1995 was referred to the Full
Bench of the CAT. The CAT by its order dated 21.9.2001 held that there was no
nexus or rational consideration in fixing the aforesaid date of 1.4.1995 for
availability of the benefit and allowed the Original Applications. Being
aggrieved thereby, the Union of India preferred Writ Petition No. 884/2002,
which was pending before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. Since the
identical issue was being agitated before this Court, by the order dated
27.7.2004, this writ petition was ordered to be transferred to this Court to be
heard along with the connected matters.
Appeals @ Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 6855-6886 of 2003:
respondents are retired employees of the Government of Punjab who retired on or
after 1.7.1993, but before the cut-off date of 1.4.1995. By the common judgment
rendered in CWP No. 4995/97, the High Court held that they were entitled to
death-cum-retirement gratuity calculated in accordance with the provisions of
the Government of Punjab Order dated 13.12.1996. Aggrieved thereby, the State
of Punjab is before this Court.
Appeal No. 902 of 2004:
respondents in this appeal were employees of the Government of Punjab who
retired from various departments/ institutions of the Government of Punjab
before the prescribed cut-off date. When their claim for enhanced
death-cum-retirement gratuity was rejected by the Government, they filed CWP
No. 15032/98. By the common judgment rendered in CWP No. 4995/97, the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana held that they were entitled to the benefit of
gratuity calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Government of
Punjab order dated 13.12.1996.
aggrieved thereby, the State of Punjab is in appeal.
No. 41 of 2005:
petitioner in this case retired on 10.11.1994 as a Judge of the Bombay High
Court, Aurangabad Bench. He claimed gratuity in accordance with O.M. dated
14.7.1995 issued by the Government of India, but contended that the cut-off
date of 1.4.1995 was arbitrary and was liable to be struck down. His claim for
the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity under the O.M. dated 14.7.1995
with higher ceiling was refused. He moved the Bombay High Court by a writ
petition No. 129/97, which has been transferred to this Court by order dated
27.7.2004 made in Civil Appeal No. 129/03, to be heard along with this group of
O.M. dated 27.9.1993, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India directed
that the dearness allowance payable to the Central Government employees with
effect from 1.7.1993 would stand modified as declared therein at varying rates
linked to the basic pay. By another O.M. dated 19.10.1993, the Government of
India notified that for Central Government employees who retired or died on or
after 16.9.1993, a portion of the dearness allowance as linked to Average
Consumer Price Index of 729.91 obtaining as on 1.3.1988 (i.e. 20% of basic pay)
would be treated as dearness pay. This would count only for reckoning
emoluments for the purpose of retirement gratuity and death gratuity under the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for no other purpose. The said
orders came into effect from 16.9.1993. It was directed that the death-cum-
retirement gratuity of persons who have already died or retired on or after
16.9.1993 should be recalculated on the basis of the said orders and arrears,
if any, be paid.
O.M. dated 14.7.1995, the Central Government directed that, as recommended by
the Fifth Central Pay Commission in its Interim Report, dearness allowance as
linked to the average All India Consumer Price Index ("AICPI")
1201.66 would be treated as dearness pay for reckoning emoluments for the
purpose of death gratuity and retirement gratuity under the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Further, it was directed that the ceiling on
gratuity would stand enhanced to Rs. 2.50 lacs. The said O.M. indicated
different percentages of dearness allowance, depending upon the basic pay
drawn, to be added to pay for calculating gratuity.
the aforesaid O.M. issued by the Central Government, the Government of Punjab
in the Department of Finance issued orders dated 13.12.1996, wherein it was
notified that the Governor of Punjab was pleased to decide that dearness
allowance as admissible to the employees as on 1.7.1993 (linked to All India
Consumer Price level 1201.66) would be treated as dearness pay for reckoning
emoluments for the purpose of retirement gratuity and death gratuity under the
Punjab Civil Services Rules- Volume II. This was in respect of "Punjab
Government employees who retire or whose death occurs on or after
1.4.1995". The said order indicated the varying percentages of dearness
allowance to be added to the pay for calculating gratuity at different pay slabs.
The order also notified that the ceiling of maximum amount of retirement
gratuity and death gratuity was to be raised from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 2.50 lacs
with effect from 1.4.1995.
large number of employees, both of the Central Government as well as the State
Governments of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, who had retired prior to 1.4.1995,
applied for getting the additional benefits of increased quantum of
death-cum-retirement gratuity up to the increased limit of Rs. 2.5 lacs. Their
claims were rejected in some cases and in other cases, the CAT and the High
Court took the view that such of the employees who had retired between 1.7.1993
and 31.3.1995 were also eligible for the aforesaid benefits.
the employees whose cases were wholly rejected or partly rejected and partly
granted, as well as the Union of India and the State Governments are in appeal
thrust of the arguments by the learned counsel on behalf of the employees has
been on the alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. They contend
that the decision of the Central Government/ State Governments to make
available the increased quantum of gratuity (with revised ceiling) only to
employees, who retired or died on or after 1.4.1995, is discriminatory and
arbitrary. They also contend that all retirees/dead persons form a homogeneous
class and any discrimination or distinction between retirees/ dead persons
prior to 1.4.1995 and those who retired/died on or after 1.4.1995 had no
rational basis, nor was intended to serve any purpose. Heavy reliance was
placed on the judgment of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
("D.S. Nakara"). We are afraid that the refrain of D. S. Nakara
(supra) has been played too often to retain its initial charm, which has been
worn thin by subsequent dicta.
learned counsel for the Union of India and the State Governments contended
that, though it is a fact that certain percentage of dearness allowance was to
be merged with the basic pay with effect from 1.7.1993 (linked to the All-India
Consumer Price level 1201.66) and that the said dearness allowance admissible
to the employees on 1.7.1993 was to be treated as dearness pay for reckoning
emoluments for the purpose of death gratuity and retirement gratuity, financial
constraints impelled the Governments, both at the Centre and the State, to
restrict such payments only to the employees who had died or retired on or
learned counsel for the Union of India made available the Government's file from
which it is seen that the Government took a conscious decision that the benefit
of the increase in the quantum of gratuity, pursuant to the merged portion of
the dearness allowance and the revised ceiling shall be made available from
1.4.1995, which was the date recommended in the Interim Report of the Fifth
Central Pay Commission.
Government noticed that the consequential financial burden would be very heavy.
Hence, the Central Government decided that these benefits would be made
available only from 1.4.1995. The State Governments followed suit.
only question, which is relevant and needs consideration, is whether the
decision of the Central and State Governments to restrict the revision of the
quantum of gratuity as well as the increased ceiling of gratuity consequent
upon merger of a portion of dearness allowance into dearness pay reckonable for
the purpose of calculating gratuity, was irrational or arbitrary.
difficult to accede to the argument on behalf of the employees that a decision of
the Central Government/ State Governments to limit the benefits only to
employees, who retire or die on or after 1.4.1995, after calculating the
financial implications thereon, was either irrational or arbitrary. Financial
and economic implications are very relevant and germane for any policy decision
touching the administration of the Government, at the Centre or at the State
by O.M. dated 19.10.1993, all that happened was that a portion of the dearness
allowance linked to average Consumer Price Index of 729.91 obtaining as on
1.3.1988 (i.e. 20% of the basic pay) was treated as dearness pay. This would
count only for reckoning the emoluments for the purpose of calculating
retirement-cum-death gratuity under the applicable rules and for no other
purpose. This change was brought into effect from 16.9.1993.
at that time, interestingly, the benefits were not made admissible from
1.3.1988, i.e. the date of the Average Consumer Price Index of 729.91, but from
a much further date i.e. 16.9.1993. The Central Government adopted the same
policy while issuing the O.M. dated 14.7.1995. Although, dearness allowance
linked to the All India Average Consumer Price Index 1201.66 (as on 1.7.1993),
was treated as reckonable part of dearness allowance for the purpose of
calculating the death-cum-retirement gratuity, the benefit was actually made
available to the employees who retired or died on or after 1.4.1995. Similarly,
the increase in the ceiling of gratuity was a mere consequential step, which
was also made applicable from 1.4.1995. As we have already noticed, 1.4.1995
was the date suggested by the Fifth Central Pay Commission ("Pay
Commission") in its Interim Report. The Central Government took a
conscious stand that the consequential financial burden would be unbearable.
It, therefore, chose to taper down the financial burden by making the benefits
available only from 1.4.1995. 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
(supra), which is the mainstay of the case of the employees, arose under
special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of
revision of pensionary benefits and classifications of pensioners into two
groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits
to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made
applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified
date". This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised pension
scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason
given by the Court was that the employees who retired prior to a specified date,
and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to
classify them into separate classes/ groups for the purpose of pensionary
benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia, which had a rational
nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
it must be noted that even in cases of pension, subsequent judgments of this
Court have considerably watered down the rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara
(supra) as we shall see later in T. N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and
Ors. ("Veerasamy"). In any event, this is not a case of a continuing
benefit like pension; it is a one-time benefit like gratuity.
Union of India v. P.N. Menon and Ors, while implementing the recommendations of
the Third Pay Commission with regard to dearness pay linked to average index
level 272, which was to be counted as emoluments for pension and gratuity under
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Central Government had fixed
a certain cut-off date and directed that only officers retiring on or after the
specified date were entitled to the benefits of the dearness pay being counted
for the purpose of retirement benefits. This was challenged as arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court turned down the challenge and
only in matters of revising the pensionary benefits, but even in respect of
revision of scales of pay, a cut-off date on some rational or reasonable basis,
has to be fixed for extending the benefits. This can be illustrated. The
Government decides to revise the pay scale of its employees and fixes the 1st
day of January of the next year for implementing the same or the 1st day of
January of the last year. In either case, a big section of its employees are
bound to miss the said revision of the scale of pay, having superannuated
before that date. An employee, who has retired on 31st December of the year in
question, will miss that pay scale only by a day, which may affect his pensionary
benefits throughout his life. No scheme can be held to be foolproof, so as to
cover and keep in view all persons who were at one time in active service. As
such the concern of the court should only be, while examining any such
grievance, to see, as to whether a particular date for extending a particular
benefit or scheme, has been fixed, on objective and rational
considerations." In Action Committee South Eastern Railway Pensioners v.
Union of India, it was held that, on merger of a part of dearness allowance as
dearness pay on average price index level at 272 with reference to different
pay ranges, fixing a cut-off date in such a manner was not arbitrary and the
principle enunciated in D.S. Nakara (supra) was not applicable. In this
connection, the ratios in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, Indian Ex- Services
League v. Union of India, State Government Pensioners' Association v. State of
A.P., and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association v. Union of
India are apt. In all these cases, the prescription of a cut-off date for
implementation of such benefits was held not to be arbitrary, irrational or violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution.
importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for
employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including in the
following two cases. In State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Amritlal Gandhi &
Ors., this Court went so as far as to note that:
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" More recently, in Veerasamy (supra), this Court
observed that, financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a
cut-off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis. In that
case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from
service before 1.7.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It
was held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one
class and they formed separate classes.
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Boota Singh and Anr., ("Boota Singh")
after considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. Nakara (supra) to
K.L. Rathee v. Union of India, it was held that D.S. Nakara (supra) should not
be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of persons who retired after a
notified date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same.
State of Punjab and Anr. v. J. L. Gupta and Ors., where one of us was on the
Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh (supra) were
reiterated, and it was 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.
and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and
Ors., a Division Bench of this Court said, even for the purpose of effecting
promotion, the fixing of a cut-off date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor
did it offend Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Court held that
possible hardship to be endured by a person as a result did not make cut-off
dates violative of Article 14.
instant case before us, the cut-off date has been fixed as 1.4.1995 on a very
valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints.
we reject the contention that the fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary,
irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14.
learned counsel for the employees have referred to Union of India v. Bidhubhushan
Malik and Ors., All India Judges Asson. & Ors. v. Union of India, M.C.
Desai & Ors. v. Union of India, M.J. Sivani and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
and Ors., Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. and
Union of India and Anr. v. Pratibha Bonnerjea and Anr. Having perused these
judgments, we find that the issue urged before us, which has been considered in
the several judgments that we have referred to in detail, has not been adverted
to. In our view, these judgments are of no assistance in resolving the issue
result, we set aside the common judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana in CWP No. 4995/97 and in connected matters decided thereby, in
so far as they purport to grant the revised death-cum- retirement gratuity to
government employees who died or retired before the prescribed cut-off date of
1.4.1995. We also set aside judgment and orders of the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh in CWP No. 462/03 (dated 24.6.2003) and in Civil Review No. 32/2003
further allow Civil Appeal Nos. 129/03, 132/03, 1838/03, 1847/03, 902/04,
1061/05 Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 12071-12072/04, Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.
2947/03, Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 6855- 6886/03 and T.C. No. 58/04 (and set
aside the order dated 21.9.2001 of the CAT (Mumbai Bench) in O.A. Nos. 542/97,
942/97 and 943/97) and dismiss Civil Appeal Nos. 133/03 and T.C. No. 41/05.
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.