Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Malti Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
1 WP-1351-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 1351 of 2023
SMT. MALTI SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akshay Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar - Government Advocate with Shri Priyank Shandilya -
Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
Heard on 26.06.2025
Pronounced on 26.08.2025
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a writ of mandamus, or other appropriate Writ
upon the respondent no.3 to revised the family pension w.e.f.
01.01.1996 as per para 3 (iii) of circular dated 16.05.2007 and also
Revise the family pension as per pay revision on 01.01.2006 and
01.01.2016, Calculate the amount of their arrears and ensure
payment pay the difference of arrears with interest at the rate of
12% per annum.
(ii) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issue directing the
respondents to decide the representation (Annexure P-1) of the
petitioner in the light of the circular dt. 16-05-2007 (Annexure P-
3).
(ii) Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
2 WP-1351-2023
petitioners.
(iv) Any other relief as may be deemed fit in the fact and
circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favor of
petitioners."
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that her
husband was in the service of undivided State of Madhya Pradesh and he
expired on 28.07.1972 and thereafter, the Petitioner has been drawing family
pension.
3. It is contended that the petitioner has not been given benefit of para
3(iii) of Circular Annexure P-3 dated 16.05.2007 whereby the State Govt.
has decided that those family pensioners who are drawing family pension
prior to 01.01.1996 and their amount of pension is less than 30% of
minimum of the payscale as applicable from 01.01.1996 then, the pensioner
shall be paid minimum family pension to the tune of Rs.1,275/- which would
be the minimum family pension to be drawn by the family pensioner. It is the
contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a family pensioner drawing
pension period to 01.01.1996 but the benefit of the said Circular has not been
granted to the Petitioner.
4. The respondents have filed reply and in the reply, the respondents
have contended that the State Bank of India has been directed to pay proper
pension to the pensioner and in that regard a Letter R-1 dated 22.02.2023
has been issued to the State Bank of India and the difference of Pension has
been worked out and credited to the Account of Pensioner to the tune of
Rs.6,63,508/- by the State Bank of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
3 WP-1351-2023
5. By way of rejoinder, it has been brought on record by the Petitioner
that though some amount has been paid to the Petitioner but the cut off date
for grant of such monetary benefits has been postponed to 01.09.2008 so far
as the benefits under sixth pay revision are concerned and postponed to
01.04.2018 so far as the revised family pension in terms of seventh pay
commission recommendations is concerned.
6. The parties have argued their case on the respective submissions.
However, in the opinion of this Court, all the issues in the matter of
substantive pension to be drawn by the Petitioner have already been settled
by the respondents by agreeing to give benefit of para 3(iii) of the Circular
Annexure P-3.
7. A notification dated 10.09.2008 has been brought on record with
Document No.1352/2024 whereby the State Govt. has decided to grant the
benefit of sixth pay Commission recommendations to the pensioners of the
State Govt.
8. The dispute that remains is that whether the State Govt. could have
denied benefit of the revision of Pension as per the benefits granted to family
pensioners either in terms of Circular Annexure P-3 dated 16.05.2007 which
is made applicable from 01.01.1996 so also subsequent Circulars issued by
the State Govt. while revising family pension in terms of sixth pay
recommendations and seventh pay recommendations. The State Govt. has
made the following averments in para 4 and 5 of the Additional reply:-
"4. That, the respondent further vide letter dated 22.02.2023
(Annexure R/2) has communicated State Bank of India CPPC cell
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
4 WP-1351-2023
Govindpura Bhopal to modify & pay the 6th Pay Scale benefit in
Pension from 01.09.2008 instead of 01.01.2006 as per note 1.1. of
Finance Dept. circular No.F9/2/2009/4/IV (Part -1) Bhopal Dated
August 2009. Subsequently, the difference of family pension from
01.01.1996 till January 2023 an amount of Rs.6,63,508/- has been
credited in the account of the petitioner vide order dated
01.03.2023 by the State Bank of India. It is further submitted that
the revised pension amount has been fixed of Rs.15064/-
including prevailing DR (Dearness Relief) rate by State Govt.
from February 2023 which has been credited to the petitioner
account.
5. Answering respondents most respectfully submit that as
per note 1 of Finance dept. circular No.F9/2/2018/R/IV Bhopal
Dated 11th June 2018 for calculating new Family pension basic in
7th pay scale, existing Family pension basic in 6th pay scale shall
be multiplied by the multiplier of 2.57 and thus the amount so
obtained will be rounded off to the next rupee. Dearness relief will
not be included in the existing basic for the above calculation.
This revision came into effect from 01.04.2018. Similarly, Point
No.4 of the same circular, which very specifically states that
"Revised Pension/Family Pension should be paid from the month
of April 2018 (Paid in May 2018) with revised Dearness relief
approved in the Seventh Pay Scale. Copy of the circular dated
11.06.2018 is marked and filed as ANNEXURE AR/1."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
5 WP-1351-2023
9. The State Govt. has in principle not disputed the entitlement the
benefit of Para-3 (iii) of Circular Annexure P-3 to the Petitioner and
therefore, the said dispute no longer survives. The only dispute that survives
is the date of the grant of said benefits and the petitioner has been granted the
said benefits not from the appropriate date but from some later dates as
mentioned in earlier part of this Order because the State Govt. has decided to
grant benefit of pay revisions to pensioners/family pensioners not at par with
those pensioners who retired on the date of applicability of 5th, 6th and 7th
Pay scales but on some later dates for example in case of pensioners who
were drawing pension prior to 01.01.2006, the revised pension has been
made applicable from 01.09.2008 though those pensioners who retired after
01.01.2006 have been granted the benefit of revised payscale from the date
of their superannuation.
10. The said dispute is no longer res integra because the issue was
raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners
Association by its Secretary Vs. State of Manipur and Others reported in
(2020) 14 SCC 625.
11. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the
discrimination being made by the State of Manipur in the matter of revision
of Pension/family pension to those employees who retired prior to
01.01.1996 and those retired after 01.01.1996 in arriving at a cut off date for
grant of revision of pension/family pension. The Hon'ble Apex Court
considered the defense of the State Govt. that looking to financial distress of
the State Govt., the State Govt. has arrived at different dates. The Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
6 WP-1351-2023
Apex Court after considering the aforesaid stand of the State held as under:-
"8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm
opinion that there is no valid justification to create two classes viz.
one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for
the purpose of grant of revised pension. In our view, such a
classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of
benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form one class who
are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the
Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal
protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine
the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a
valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of
India permits a valid classification. However, a valid classification
must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the
just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential
consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid
must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing
rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the
choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must
have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.
The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a
distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible
differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought
to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cut-off date (as in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
7 WP-1351-2023
present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners
for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid
classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be
satisfied.
8.1. In the present case, the classification in question has no
reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while
revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and
purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost
of living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such
a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is
unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and
choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cut-off date for
extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to
be a classification founded on some rational principle when
similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit.
8.2. As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute
that as such a decision has been taken by the State Government to
revise the pension keeping in mind the increase in the cost of
living. Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners
irrespective of whether they have retired pre-1996 or post-1996.
As observed hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class.
Therefore, by such a classification/cut-off date the equals are
treated as unequals and therefore such a classification which has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
8 WP-1351-2023
no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension is
unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore the said
classification was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court. At this stage, it is required to be observed that
whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is
introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off
date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same
shall not be applicable with respect to one and single class of
persons, the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who
are already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with
respect to revision.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we
are of the opinion that the controversy/issue in the present appeal
is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in D.S.
Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983
SCC (L&S) 145] . The decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara [D.S.
Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S)
145] shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the case on
hand. The Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in
not following the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara [D.S.
Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S)
145] and has clearly erred in reversing the judgment and order of
the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order [State
of Manipur v. All Manipur Pensioners' Assn., 2016 SCC OnLine
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
9 WP-1351-2023
Mani 22] passed by the Division Bench is not sustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly
quashed and set aside. The judgment and order [All Manipur
Pensioners' Assn. v. State of Manipur, 2005 SCC OnLine Gau 118
: (2005) 3 Gau LR 384] passed by the learned Single Judge is
hereby restored and it is held that all the pensioners, irrespective of
their date of retirement viz. pre-1996 retirees shall be entitled to
revision in pension on a par with those pensioners who retired
post-1996. The arrears be paid to the respective pensioners within
a period of three months from today."
12. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of this Court
has held that the said decision would apply to Pensioners of the State of
Madhya Pradesh also and the contention of the State Govt. of Madhya
Pradesh that decision passed in the case of pensions of State of Manipur
would not apply to pensioners of the State of Madhya Pradesh has been
discarded by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.202/2025 (The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Virendra Kr. Nagar) in the following terms:-
"04. The State Government cannot burden the financial
implication after revision of pension of these pensioners, this plea
cannot be considered because the State Government has not come
up with the figure about the number of pensioners and the
financial liability which would come on State Exchequer. The
financial constraint cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate
claim to the pensioners. The appellant / State has failed to point
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
10 WP-1351-2023
out the difference between the pensioner retired on or before
31.12.2005 and the pensioners retiring on or after 02.01.2006.
Two days' difference between two retired persons cannot make
them suffer in respect of the monetary benefits, therefore, the Writ
Court has rightly held that there cannot be a two class of
pensioners in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The benefit of pay
revisions applies not only to the existing employees, but to the ex-
employees who are getting pension as per law. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra)
has not held that this law would apply only in the State of
Manipur, the judgment passed by the Apex Court is a law under
Article 1421 of the Constitution of India hence, applies to entire
country. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Swami
V/s Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605 in Para 39 has held as
under:
39. The Constitution confers in explicit
language judicial review on the Supreme
Court and by operation of Articles 138, 139
and 140, enlarged that power, to alongate and
effectively adjudicate the questions doing full
and effective justice. The power of judicial
review is to stamp out excesses in exercise of
power, injustice or miscarriage of justice. The
decision of this Court is the last word on the
interpretation of the Constitution and the
laws as law of the land under Article 141.
The Judge is the living oracle working in dry
light of realism pouring life and force into the
dry bones of law to articulate the felt
necessities of the time. The Judge, in
particular from the higher judiciary,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
11 WP-1351-2023
possesses undoubtedly, power and
jurisdiction to decide rightly or may err as
well. The error must be corrected as provided
under law. In its absence, it cannot be
disturbed. The superior court has jurisdiction
and power to determine its own jurisdiction
and error in that behalf does not constitute an
error of jurisdiction. The people would shape
their course of conduct or dealings or legal
affairs in accordance with law. The law laid
down by this Court operates as precedent.
The law laid, thus, needs stability, continuity
and certainty. The judicial vacillation would
undermine the respect for the law and the
utility of the very judicial process as well as
its efficacy. We are bound by the taught
traditions and built-in heritage of law.
Adherence to precedents, stare decisis, is
usually a wise policy for rule of law unless
we have clear, compelling and substantial
reasons for its reconsideration in the larger
public interest. Reconsideration of an earlier
view is not due to an act of judicial fallibility
but an index of supremacy of law. So when
all the relevant provisions of law or material
aspects of the case or binding precedent was
not brought to the notice of the Court and its
impact on the general administration of law,
it would need reconsideration. The obvious
error committed by the Court leading to
miscarriage of justice would need correction
by Article 142 or Section 114 read with
Order 47 Rule 1 or Section 151 CPC etc. But
by itself it is not a licence to unsettle the
settled law or keep the law at variance at
pleasure or whim.
05. In view of the above, we have no reason to take a
different view as has been taken by the Writ Court. Accordingly,
all the present writ appeals are hereby dismissed."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40580
12 WP-1351-2023
13. The case of the Petitioner being squarely covered by the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and by the Division Bench of this
Court, the Petitioner is held entitled to benefit of revision of family pension
w.e.f.01.01.1996, 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016 as per the schemes announced
by the State Govt. in terms of 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission
recommendations respectively.
14. Let appropriate calculation of arrears be carried out and paid to the
petitioner within 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this
Order.
15. Accordingly, the Petition is partly allowed and disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
