BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD Vs. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4.2.2011 directing the Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (hereafter referred to as 'Board') to accord the members of the petitioner Association revised pensionary benefits with effect from 1.7.2003 onwards upto 1.7.2008 and thereafter in accordance with revision of pay scales wherever and whenever applicable. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has accepted and acted upon the undertaking of the petitioner Association to the effect that they shall not insist on payment of arrears prior to 1.7.2008, and has directed that these would not be payable consequent upon the revision of pension retrospectively. Thirdly the respondent - Board has also been called upon to consider the request of the petitioner Association vis-a-vis sanction of medical benefits to the pensioners and their spouses on such terms as the Board deems fit. Fourthly, the respondent - Board has been directed to implement the foregoing three directions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the impugned order. The facts so far as they are germane for a decision of this appeal, succinctly stated, are thus. The Board has itself fixed and implemented pay scales for its employees since 1.7.1986. Revisions of pay scales have occurred on 1.7.1990, 1.7.1994, 1.7.1998, 1.7.2003 and 1.7.2008. It appears that pension was revised with regard to all employees on two previous occasions, that is, 1.7.1990 and 1.7.1994. In 1998 the Board devised a dichotomy within the pensioners, viz., the dividing date having retirements prior and post 1.7.1990. The petitioner Association espoused the cause of those pensioners, falling in the first category. Since several representations ended in futility, the Association had no alternative but to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Pensioners falling in the second category have received the benefit of the revised pension with regard to the increases on 1.7.1990 as well as 1.7.1994 and onwards. It appears that the State Government has revised pension with effect from 1.4.1998 on the general revision of pay scales, but the Board has, not extended these benefits to the petitioners with effect from. 1.4.1998 onwards.

(2.) The learned Single Judge has granted the relief mentioned above almost entirely on the decision of the Constitution Bench in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983 AIR(SC) 130. The petitioners before the Constitution Bench were retired pensioners of the Central Government, civil servants and members of the Armed Forces. Therefore the present petitioners - pensioners must inevitably swim or sink depending on whether they fall within or without the ratio of Nakara. The Constitution Bench in Nakara had referred to its previous Constitution Bench decision in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1971 AIR(SC) 1409 and reiterated that it is indeed an antiquated notion that pension is a bounty or gratuitous payment flowing from the sweet will or grace of the employer and that it is not claimable as a right. The Constitution Bench in Nakara opined that pension is not only compensation for loyal services rendered but that it partakes of a measure of socio-economic justice. The Constitution Bench also noticed that "the continuous upward movement of the cost of living index has a sequel on inflationary input and diminishing purchasing power of rupee necessitated upward revision of pension". We can do no better than to reproduce extracts from this celebrated judgment for the reason that it is our understanding that this Appeal must perforce predicted completely and comprehensively on the ratio decidendi of Nakara.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant - Board it has been conceded that the ratio in Nakara applies on all fours to the facts of the present case. However reliance has been placed on the subsequent decisions of two Judge Benches in State of W.B. v. Monotosh Roy, 1999 2 SCC 71; State of W.B. v. W.B. Government Pensioners Association, 2002 2 SCC 179; State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, 2005 6 SCC 754 and Sudhir Kumar Consul v. Allahabad Bank, 2011 3 SCC 486. There can be no cavil that all these judgments run counter to the tenor and essence of Nakara; nay they are all inconsistent and irreconcilable with the binding opinion of the Constitution Bench. What option lies before us is the conundrum that stares us in the face. It becomes imperative to delve into the principle of stare decisis, that is, the parameters within which the later Bench of a High Court or the Supreme Court can move around with regard to a decision already rendered by a Bench of greater strength.