NARAYANAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are retired employees of the Armed forces have been re-employed in establishments of the State Government and public sector undertakings. In these petitions under Art. 226 of the constitution of India they impugn the validity of the orders of the Central government by which the payment of relief on pension earned upon retirement from the armed forces, has been suspended during the period of re-employment. In this judgment the petitioners shall be referred to as ex-servicemen or pensioners. I. THE FACTS

(2.) THE facts fall in a narrow compass and are un controverter. As is well known, employees in the armed forces retire at a relatively young age. THE Central Government has a number of schemes designed to provide employment to ex-service men, by relaxation of age and qualifications and by preferential treatment. In pursuance of these schemes, the petitioners, upon their retirement, have been re-employed in different public sector undertakings such as the nationalised banks, National Cadet corps, establishments of the State Governments and so on. Upon their retirement from the Armed Forces the petitioners earned pension. THEy also receive an allowance known as "relief on pension" which is in the nature of dearness Allowance paid to the serving employees. After their re-employment the petitioners continued to receive the pension earned by them together with the relief on the pension. THEy also receive salary plus the dearness allowance in their re-employment. THE pay in the re-employed position was fixed after deducting the amount of pension. However, it is unnecessary to refer to the details like the ignorable amount of pension and the deductible amount of pension.

(3.) THE question whether the relief on pension is a part of pension has been considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ex-Pdsahlar Major's case (Ex-Risaldar Major Basfieshar Singh & Others v. Union of India & others (Civil Writ Petition No. 8245 of 1991), by the delhi High Court in the case of National Ex-Service men Co-ordination Committee (National Ex-Service Men Co-ordination Committee & others v. Union of India & others (Civil Writ Petition No. 1966 of 1992) and by the Madras High court in S. Venkatesan (S. Venkatesan & 69 others v. Union of India & others (W. A. No. 89 & 134 of 1990 and Writ Petition No. 8805/1987 & other writ petitions ). All these cases accepted that pension is compensation for the past services. Upon analysis of the reports of the Central Pay commissions, the Punjab & Haryana, Madras and Delhi High Courts emphasised certain aspects of the relief on pension. THEy highlighted the factors like (a)the absence of a recommendation by the Pay Commissions that the relief on pension should be absorbed in pension, (b) that the relief on pension was always "considered" as a distinct clement of remuneration which may or may not be consolidated with the pension and (c) that the relief on pension was never "considered" or "treated" as part of the pension. In view of this perception of the idea of pension they held that relief on pension is not a part of the pension. "treating" dearness relief as part of the pension, involves an element of fiction. THE reason is that if pension, in its true character includes the relief granted to restore the lost value of pension, "treating" the relief as distinct from pension does not alter the true conception of pension. THE fictional "treatment" does not help in determining the concept, character or content of pension itself. While I propose to bear in mind these judgments and the report of the Fourth pay Commission from which I have immensely benefited, I propose to attempt a conceptual analysis of pension. My endeavour is to understand, not the external form of the payment expressed as the basic pension plus the relief on pension, but to unravel what is the true character of the payment.