Union of India & Ors Vs. B. Rama
Murthy  INSC 94 (27
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1995 SCC (2) 530 JT 1995 (2) 539 1995 SCALE (1)851
Government of India in O.M.No. 18(4)-EV/79 dated May 25, 1979 introduced in paragraph 3(iii) that
half of the dearness pay was treated as pay to compute retirement benefits.
That came to be challenged by the respondent in filing O.A. before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal in the impugned order
dated August 9, 1989 following a judgment of the
Bangalore Tribunal declared it to be ultra vires, offending Article 14 of the
Constitution. Thus this appeal by special leave.
benefit of the O.M. is to facilitate calculation of 10 months' average pay for
the purpose of pension. Earlier, only 3/10th of the 10 months average pay was
computed for pension. Under the impugned order in para 3(iii) of the O.M. dated
May 25, 1979, the computation would be 5/10th i.e.
half of the dearness pay for the purpose of computation of pension. In other
words, the O.M. is more beneficial for the pensioner rather than earlier
computation. Whether the notification is justified and valid in law, was
considered by a Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Seva Nivatra Karamchari
Hitkari Samiti, 1995(1) SCALE 40 wherein it was held that the ratio in Nakara's
case has no bearing in this matter and the introduction of the rule is not
arbitrary or 540 capricious. It is permissible to introduce different retiral
benefit schemes for Government servants as indicated in the decisions held by
this Court in Krishan Kumar v. Union of India, (1994)4 SCC 207, Indian Ex-Service
League v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC II 82, and State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, AIR
1991 SC 1743.
view of the above ratio and practical effect of the O.M., we are of the opinion
that there is no invidious discrimination in the classification of the
pensioners who retired at different dates and in computation of the pension for
different periods. The Government's O.M. makes dis- cernible difference between
government employees retired at different dates for entitlement to pension. In
fact, the O.M. is more beneficial to the retired employees than was contended
in the petition.
Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not right in following the earlier
decision of the another Tribunal at Bangalore accepting the ratio in Nakara's case without testing the facts and
circumstances of this case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.