Page No.# 1/5 vs All Assam Retired Officers
2025 Latest Caselaw 4745 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs All Assam Retired Officers on 21 August, 2025

                                                               Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010148992023




                                                         2025:GAU-AS:11212

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              Case No. : WA/418/2023

         STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FINANCE DEPARTMENT
         REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
         FINANCE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.



         VERSUS

         ALL ASSAM RETIRED OFFICERS, TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES
         COMMITTEE
         S.B. HOUSING COMPLEX, TRIPURA ROAD, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI- 28,
         DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

         2:SRI BIMAN SARMAH
          S/O SRI NORENDRA NATH SARMA
         RANGBHUMI
          GOTANAGAR
         HOUSE NO. 6

         2ND FLOOR
          P.O.- GOTANAGAR
          GUWAHATI- 781033.

         3:SRI JATINDRA NATH BORAH
          S/O LATE BHARAT CHANDRA BORAH

         ANIRUDHA PATH
         BASISTHAPUR PATH NO. 2

         GUWAHATI- 781028.

         4:THE CHIEF SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
                                                                            Page No.# 2/5

              DISPUR
              GUWAHATI- 781006.

             5:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
             TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
              PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT
              DISPUR
              GUWAHATI- 781006.

             6:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
             TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
              PERSONAL DEPARTMENT
              DISPUR
              GUWAHATI- 781006

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R BORPUJARI,

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. M K CHOUDHURY (r-1,2,3),MR P BHARDWAJ
(r-1,2,3),MR. M SARMA (r-1,2,3),MR. D. BORAH


For the Appellant(s):-          Mr. R. Borpujari, Advocate,
For the Respondent(s):- Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
                              Mr. P. Saikia, Govt. Advocate, Assam




                                         BEFORE
          HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

21-08-2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J)

1. The present intra-Court appeal is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 28.04.2016 passed in WP(C) No.61/2011. By way of the aforesaid writ petition, a challenge was laid to the decision of the Government of Assam not to give benefits of arrears of pension/Death-Cum Retirement Gratuity etc. arising out of the recommendation Page No.# 3/5

of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008 to the pensioners, who retired from service during the period in between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009, on the grounds of financial stringency and instead to give them notional benefits, despite acceptance and implementation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008, with effect from 01.01.2006.

2. In that writ petition, the learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment of D.S. Nakara & Ors. -Vs- Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305, held that such classification was not permissible in the case of pensioners, who formed a class in themselves, especially when the recommendations were implemented with effect from 01.01.2006. For employees who would have retired prior to 01.01.2006, there would naturally be no benefit of the pay hike; still, persons retiring between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009 could not have been denied the benefit of the Pay Commission recommendation of higher salary only for financial stringency.

3. This anomaly was further confounded by the fact that there was no specific statement that the straitened financial circumstances of the State would be overcome after 3 (three) years.

4. The State of Assam challenged such a decision in appeal, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab & Ors. -Vs- Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. , reported in (2005) 6 SCC 754, wherein it was held that the financial constraint is a valid ground for fixation of cut-off date for grant of benefit of increased quantum of pay or other benefits.

5. However, the appellant/State of Assam withdrew that appeal to approach the learned Single Judge in review.

6. The review petition, however, was dismissed on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record or that something which could not be discovered without a long drawn process of reasoning.

7. In the present appeal, along with the order dismissing the review petition, the order passed in the original writ petition has also been impugned.

Page No.# 4/5

8. There is no dispute on the proposition of law as urged by Mr. Borpujari, learned Advocate, that generally the State has the power to fix a cut-off date for extending pensionary benefits and that financial constraint can be a valid ground for fixation of a cut-off date for the grant of the benefit of increased quantum of pay or other benefits. However, it is equally well settled that if the cut-off date is arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ Court can strike it down.

9. In D.S. Nakara (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a classification between pre and post cut-off date retirees was arbitrary, when both the classes formed a homogenous class. In substance, when all the retirees formed one homogenous class, the benefits must be extended equally.

10. In the case in hand, there is no dispute at the bar that the pensioners in question retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009. There is also no dispute in the present case that the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008, was accepted and implemented with effect from 01.01.2006. Given this position, there is no valid justification for creating two classes of pensioners: those who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009, and those who retired after 31.03.2009, solely to grant a revised pension.

11. All these pensioners formed one class and are entitled to revision of their pensions in terms of the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008. As held in All Manipur Pensioners Association Vs. State of Manipur reported in (2020) 14 SCC 625; in this case, also, the classification as aforesaid sought to be made by the State has no nexus with the object and purpose of the grant of the benefit of revised pension.

12. The object and purpose of such revision is due to increase in cost of living and when all the pensioners formed a single class, there cannot be any separate classification amongst this homogenous group and therefore, the actions of the authorities are rightly held by the learned Single Judge to be unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Page No.# 5/5

13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ratio laid down in D.S. Nakara (supra) and All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) are applicable in the given facts of the present case and the determination made in State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) cannot be placed into service, in the facts of the present case.

14. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal lacks merit and the impugned judgment and order dated 28.04.2016, requires no interference. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

              JUDGE                                    CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant