HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 12959 /2014
Parties Name S.S. CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS
VS.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered By HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT, J.
Whether approved for Yes/No reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioners :Shri Paresh Pareek, Advocate.
For respondents No.2 and 3: Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate.
Law laid down -
Significant paragraph -
number
(ORDER)
19/01/2022
Petitioners have filed this writ petition to issue writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure-P/1) and to command respondents to release arrears of pension payable to petitioners between 01.10.2003 to 01.04.2006. Petitioners are demanding that they may be treated similarly to pensioners who retired after 31.12.2000.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners had filed a representation before the authority pursuant to direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 3820/2008. Writ petition filed by one Arun D. Ayachit was disposed off giving direction that representation filed by petitioners or their association shall be considered by Committee constituted by respondent Board. Said Committee after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass appropriate order 2 WP No.12959/2014 within a period of six months from the date of filing of said representation. Representations filed by various pensioners and association were considered by impugned order dated 30.06.2014 and were rejected. It was submitted that Committee did not consider the judgment of Apex Court while deciding the representation and claim of petitioners were rejected arbitrarily.
3. Respondents had filed their reply and stated therein that petitioners have been benefited as they have been given pay revision from 01.04.2006. Since the revision was due from 01.01.2001, therefore, those employees who were in service on that day have been taken at par with serving employee and they from an entirely separate class than the petitioners and similarly situated employees. The date from which the benefit is extended to petitioners is 01.04.2006 cannot be termed as arbitrary. In view of same, counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 makes a prayer for dismissal of writ petition.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Committee was constituted by respondents Board to grant benefit of Wage Revision w.e.f. 01.10.2003 in place of 01.04.2006 and also for removal of disparity in dearness allowance of working employees and dearness relief of retired employees 2000 onwards was taken into consideration. Dearness relief payable to retired employees has been made similar to dearness allowance payable to working employees. Therefore, one of the grievance stood addressed by the Committee. 3 WP No.12959/2014 Considering second grievance, Committee held that working employees and retired employees constitute two different class with regard to emoluments and perquisites amongst other things. There is no parity between working employees and pensioners, therefore, there is no question of discrimination. Issue relating to serving employees do not apply to pensioners in same ratio. Demand of parity has no merit. Orders with regard to revision of wages and pensions are always issued separately and parameters applied thereon are not necessarily be same. Pensioners cannot claim parity with working employees. There has always been a cut off date for giving benefit of wage revision to existing employees and to pensioners. Benefit of wage revision to existing employees and consequential benefit to pensioners are different issues and therefore, are to be treated separately and not necessarily on the principle of parity. Fixing the date of payment of arrears to employees is w.e.f. 01.04.2006 is a policy decision. Said decision of Board is not arbitrary. The difference between pensioners who retired before and after Wage Revision is always bound to arise. Pay Revision w.e.f. 01.01.2001 was notional and even for working employees up till 30.09.2003. Board has taken a decision on 07.04.2006 that fixation of benefit so given due to Wage Revision of 01.01.2001 shall be notional upto 31.03.2006 for purpose of revision of pension and family pension to employees and officers drawing pension from M.P.S.E.B as on 31.12.2000. In M.P. No. 1878/1989, vide order 4 WP No.12959/2014 dated 17.12.2002, classification was upheld in respect of pension and pensionary benefits to the retirees prior to 01.04.1989 and after 01.04.1989 and same has been given stamp of approval by Division Bench. In said order, it was held in M.P. No. 1878/1989 clarification was sought regarding pensioners of earswhile MPEB/MPSEB, who retired before 01.06.2005 and same principle will also be applicable in this case. In view of aforesaid, representation of petitioners was rejected.
6. Similar matter was considered by this Court in WP No.3643/2011. Said case was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.2011. Learned Single Judge gave direction to respondent board to pass fresh resolution based upon the report of committee constituted by the Board by virtue of order passed by this Court on 24.11.2008. Report of committee shall not be turned down on account of financial constrains and appropriate resolution shall be passed based upon the recommendations of the committee which was constituted by Board in the matter. Board also filed review petition No.53/2012 before this Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2012. Petitioner in this case made a prayer for quashing of order dated 30.06.2014.
7. Apex Court in case of D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 has held that where all relevant considerations are same, person holding identical post may not be treated differently in 5 WP No.12959/2014 the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different department. If that cannot be done when they are in service, can that be done during their retirement? Expanding this principle one can confidently say that if pensioners form a class their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later.
8. Counsel appearing for respondents had relied on judgment passed by Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal and Another Vs. West Bengal Govt. Pensioners' Associations and Others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 179. Relying on said judgment, it was argued that in that case Pay Commission has given a reason for choosing dated 01.01.1986 as the cut off date. Merely because a cut off date is fixed would not make the exercise invalid although persons in service immediately before the cut off date would be deprived of the benefit of revised scales of pay. Reasons stated by Third Pay Commission cannot be stated to be arbitrary and irrelevant. Difference between pre-1986 pensioners and post-1986 pensioners is only on account of revision of pay scales and not on account of failure of the State Government to equitably apply the liberalised Pension Scheme formula. Counsel for respondents also argued that this Court in M.P. No.1878/1989 vide order dated 17.12.2002 upheld the cut off date in respect of retirees prior to 01.04.1989 and after 10.04.1989. In view of said submissions, 6 WP No.12959/2014 counsel appearing for respondents made a prayer for dismissal of writ petition.
9. Heard the counsel for the parties.
10. Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal and Another (supra) cited the judgment of Apex Court and in para 24 has laid down as under:-
"24. Again in K.L. Rathee v. Union of India the case of the petitioner was that following Nakara case he had to be given the same amount of pension as other employees of his rank irrespective of the date of retirement. The Court noted that Nakara did not strike down the definition of "emoluments" and held that: (SCC pp. 10 & 11, paras 8 & 10) "Nakara case does not lay down that the same amount of pension must be paid to all persons retiring from government service irrespective of the date of retirement..... Even if pension is calculated on the basis of the same formula the basis of calculation has to be the average of the last ten months' emoluments. This principle of adopting last ten months' emoluments as the basis for calculation of pension must be uniformly applied to all persons drawing pension from the Central Government. This was all that was laid down in Nakara case. It, however, did not lay down that the quantum of emoluments drawn during the last ten months of service of each government employee must be taken to be the same for this purpose. .... The emoluments have to be calculated according to the government rules in force at the time of retirement of the employees."
(emphasis supplied)
11. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that Expert Committee constituted to hear the objections of association in respect of revision of wages and pension has held that working employees and retired employees constitute two different classes with regard to emoluments perquisites amongst others things. Issue relating serving employees do not apply to pensioners in same ratio. Demand of parity has no merit. There is always a cut off date for giving benefit of wage revisions to existing employees and to pensioners. Benefit of wage revision to existing 7 WP No.12959/2014 employees and consequential benefit to pensioners are two different issue and therefore are to be treated separately and same is not necessarily to be dealt with on parity. The action of the Board is not arbitrary. There is difference between pensioners who retired before and after the wage revision and therefore difference is bound to arise.
No arbitrariness can be found in the decision of the Expert Committee.
12. Considering the aforesaid, writ petition filed by petitioners is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE shabana/vkt SUNIL Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR PATEL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya KUMAR Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=3ad456309c8cfa67fdf9acdac6949 bbc6ea3342f02b1af1bdaf3424a04c11d99, pseudonym=EB80E81424E3C3A3FCB5801 D65B573419C2D9C68, PATEL serialNumber=5011B37A3DD5E32019F501 F10E878D2F118732491B5F40BDC9923237 D954365B, cn=SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.01.21 17:08:45 +05'30'