KAMLA JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed by the State Government as contained in Annexure P-13 dtd. 7/5/2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner to grant her pension with arrears w.e.f. 1/1/1996 treating her basic pay as on 1/1/1996 to be Rs.12,840.00, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is already 87 years of age and this is the third round of litigation for claiming the said benefits. Records indicate that petitioner was working in the department of Higher Education under the Govt. of M.P. at Bhopal and on 30th September when she was retired on attaining the age of superannuation, she was holding the post of Principal in Government Girls College, Ranjhi, Jabalpur. After her retirement pension and other benefits were granted to her. It is her case that subsequently she went out of India and was staying with her son and when she came back, she was informed that the State Government has issued various circulars revising pay scale and pension payable to various employees, who had retired prior to 1/1/1996. By placing reliance on two circulars dtd. 16/5/2007 and 15/1/2008, filed in this writ petition as Annexures P-4 and P-5, the petitioner initially approached this court in W.P.No.1117/09(S) claiming benefit of revision of per pension in accordance to these circulars. It was the case of the petitioner that the State Government has revised the pay scale of various employees after the Pay Commission recommendation was implemented and with regard to Principals like the petitioner their pay has been revised w.e.f. 1/1/1990 and it is ordered that as on 1/1/1996 the basic pay of persons like the petitioner would be treated as Rs.12,840.00 and pension would be paid to them treating it to be so. Even though the revision of pay was ordered w.e.f. 1/1/1996 but actual revision of pension on such revision of pay was only granted from 1/4/2007, claiming revision of pension and arrears, the petitioner approached this court and claimed arrears from 1/1/96. Initially the said writ petition was heard and disposed of by this court on 5/3/2009 directing the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of the circulars dtd. 16/5/2007 and 15/1/2008 Annexures P-4 and P-5 respectively. When the claim was not considered properly and was not decided in accordance to the assertion made by the petitioner, contempt application was filed but subsequently another writ petition bearing W.P.No.1239/2010(S) was filed before this court. In the said case, various grounds were raised by the petitioner claiming arrears of pension w.e.f. 1/1/1996 and one of the main ground canvassed was that for persons retiring prior to 1/1/1996, no arrears of pension is granted and revised pension treating them to be retired by getting basic salary of Rs.12,480.00 is granted only from 1/4/2007. On the contrary, persons who have retired on 1/1/1996 or thereafter would be getting different quantum of pension as their pension is calculated on the revision of pay effected from 1/1/1996, accordingly in W.P.No.1239/2010(S) it was the case of the petitioner that in fixing cut off date as 1/4/7 for the purpose of granting arrears of pension to person retiring prior to 1/1/1996 two difference class of pensioners are created between 1/1/1996 upto 1/4/2007 i.e. persons who retired after 1/1/96 they will get pension on the basis of the unrevused pay scale w.e.f. 1/1/96 upto 1/4/2007 whereas persons who have retired on 1/1/1996 will get pension on the basis of revised pay scale, inter alia contending that this is discriminatory, this ground was canvassed in the earlier W.P.No.1239/2010(S). This court considered alls these aspect and in paras 7 and 8 dealt with the matter and after taking note of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. SPS Vains (Retd) and others, (2008) 9 SCC 125 and another judgment in the case of Subrata Sen and others Vs. Union of India and others (2001) 8 SCC 71, came to the conclusion that the State Government for choosing the cut off date 1/4/2007 for the employees who have retired prior to 1/1/96 have not given any justification except for defending their action on the basis of financial consideration and other financial resources. It was held by a Bench of this court in para-10 of the aforesaid judgment rendered in W.P.No.1239/2010(S) that discrimination between the employees cannot be done on the basis of financial consideration, accordingly in paras 11 and 12 the following observations were made by this court and finally the matter was decided in para 13 in the following manner :

(3.) Shri Ashok Jain, Attorney holder for the petitioner took me through the findings and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of SPS Vains(Retd.) (supra) , the finding recorded in the case of the petitioner in the earlier order as indicated hereinabove in paras 11 and 12 and argued that action on financial consideration without giving any justification for fixing the cut off date is again taken, which is unsustainable. Shri Jain submits that except for pleadings financial implication, no reasonable justification for fixing cut off date is forthcoming from the respondents and therefore, it is stated that the order be quashed and directions be issued to the respondents to pay arrears to the petitioner also w.e.f. 1/1/1996.