R S SAXSENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition which is of 1987, origin comes be fore us in the presence of the leaned counsel for the parties.

(2.) SRI Ravi Kant, learned counsel appearing on behali of the petitioner submits that Clause 6 of the impugned circular dated May 10, 1984 clarifies the position by which the petitioner has been discriminated in a hostile manner.

(3.) FURTHER according to the petitioner, the aforesaid Clause 6 of the 'circular suffers from the vice of discrimination inasmuch as it denied the benefits to those employees who retired from service prior to March 31,1979. However, the State Government issued yet another circular on September 7, 1979, granting further benefits to the employees who retired on or after 31st March, 1979. According to the aforesaid circular, instead of the erstwhile formula of 33/80, a new formula was adopted, Tha pension was to be computed according to the three slabs, mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order/circular which is as follows :- (1) Upto Rs. 1,000 of the eligible % of the average average emoluments. emoluments. (2) For the next Rs. 500 of the% of the average average emoluments for eligi- emoluments. bility of pension. (3) Remaining average % of the average in emoluments. Emoluments excess thereof. 6 According to the petitioner as a result of the aforesaid circular, the employees, who retired after March 31, 1979 were granted greater benefits than to which the petitioner was entitled. The pension was worked out on the application of the formula contained in the Government Order/circular dated June 25, 1979 which is as under :- (1) Pay Average for 10 months Rs. 850. 00 (2) D. A. Average for 10 months Rs. 24. 00 (3) Additional D. A. Rs. 229. 50 or Rs. 230. 00 @27% of pay on Rs. 850 Rs. 1104. 00 Pension : @50% on Rs. 1000 Rs. 500. 00 @45% on Rs. 104 Rs. 47. 00 Rs. 547. 00 7. In view of the aforesaid calculation, the pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 426 per month, which amounts to only 50% of the basic pay. Petitioner was not granted benefit of the dearness allowance and pay, as ordained under the Government order dated June 25, 1979, 8. According to the petitioner in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 the aforesaid Government order in so far as it denied the benefit to the pensioners who retired prior to a certain date, as fixed under the Government order was held to be a case of hostile discrimination. In fact, the need for greater enhanced pension was all the more necessary and expected in case of those employees, who retired in the early seventies. Denial of these benefits to these employees, therefore, amounted to grave discrimination, according to the judgment in D. S. Nakara (supra) of the Supreme Court. 9. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting res pondents. 10. Accordingly, after giving anxious consideration to the facts of this case, this Court is of the view that Clause 6 of the aforesaid circular dated May 10, 1984 causes discrimination as it has arbitrarily fixed up the point of date for pensionary benefits to the retired employees, and, thus it is not fitting with the liberalised pension rules. As such, in our view, there is a good dual of force in the submissions of Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition may be allowed to that extent. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Accountant General, U. P. , Allahabad, respondent No. 2 to take into con sideration the observation of the Supreme Court taken in its judgment (supra), and, refix the pension of the petitioner at par with the employees who had retired after March 31,1979. Such determination has to be made as quickly as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of com munication of the order. 12. In case the aforesaid authority is not in a position to treat the petitioner at par with the employees who had retired after March 31, 1979, the authority is directed to give strict reasons in support thereof so that the petitioner could ventilate his grievance at subsequent stage. 13. " The writ petition succeeds and is allowed as indicated above. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .