MAHENDRA KUMAR LALAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has delivered a judgment in Writ Petition No.7429/2015 (Shri Virendra Kr. Nagar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another) in identical facts and circumstances of the case on 30/01/2020 and the same reads as under:-

(2.) As per the claim made in all the petitions and in support of the same the pleadings made therein, the core issue involved in the case is whether discrimination in between pensioner though they legally belong to the single class is permissible by making 'class within class' on the ground that a part of the pensioners, who were retired prior to 01.01.2006 and remaining part retired on or after 01.01.2006 for the purpose of granting arrears of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

(3.) As per the petitioners, they belong to category retired before 01.01.2006, but, they are being deprived of the benefit of arrears of pension making fixation erroneously, which is against the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission accepted by the Government. As per the petitioners, the respondents denied the benefit of the said Pay Commission to the petitioners for the reasons that the same came into effect w.e.f. 01.01.2006 whereas the petitioners have retired prior to that and accordingly they are not entitled to get the benefit of the same. The respondents have taken a stand that as per the gazette notification dated 10.09.2008 (Annexure P/1), the benefit of the said Pay Commission would be granted to the employees retired between 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008. The petitioners, therefore, are claiming that such a classification made by the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the object of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As per the petitioners, there cannot be 'class within class'. They have submitted that this issue has already been decided by this Court in the cases of Smt. Kamla Jain Vs. State of M.P. and others - WP No. 5802/2011 and Pensioners' Federation, Madhya Pradesh through its President Shri Ambika Prasad Pandey Vs. The Government of Madhya Pradesh - WA No. 353/2015. Therefore, while dealing with the issue involved in the case, necessary facts are required to be mentioned in brief, which are as follows.