MOOSATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired from the services of the Calicut University as Professor, on 1-2-1981. Taking into account his qualifying service and the last pay drawn, he was entitled to get more than Rs. 36,000/- by way of death cum retirement gratuity; but he was paid only Rs. 28,000/- as that was the maximum payable under the rules and orders as they then stood. Subsequently, by Ext. P1 order dated 17-9-82 the ceiling was raised to Rs. 36,000/-, but effective only from 1-4-82. The petitioner contends that the fixation of such a date for the commencement of the revised scheme (for maximum gratuity) is arbitrary and illegal, and that when this illegal part of Ext. P1 is struck down and severed, he too, like other pensioners retiring after 1-4-82, could claim Rs. 36,000/- as gratuity.

(2.) The contention is based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the well known case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ). In May, 1979 the Central Government issued an order whereby the formula for computation of pension was liberalised, but the liberalised scheme was to apply only to Central Government servants in service on 31-3-79 and retiring on or after that date ("specified date"). The result was to create two classes of pensioners with different rules for computation of pension, those who had retired before the specified date, and those who had or were to retire afterwards. It was argued before the Supreme Court that the specified date was fixed arbitrarily, that its result was to create inequality among members of a homogeneous class of pensioners and that the specification of the date could be struck down and severed, as violative of Art.14. so that even those who had retired before 31-3-79 could claim the benefit of the liberalised rules. The court accepted these arguments in Nakara. What the Supreme Court said with regard to the "specified date" in that case in the context of the pension scheme, it is suggested by counsel, should apply to the date specified in Ext. P1 (1-4-82) also, in the context of the scheme for revising the ceiling on gratuity.

(3.) Such an approach, I am afraid, involves an attempt to oversimplify the issues raised and decided in Nakara, and also to overlook the distinction between gratuity and pension in some vital respects, though both could generally be characterised as retirement benefits.