SATISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitions filed by the Government employees, who retired between 1/1/2016 and 31/3/2017, project a limited cause of payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity (hereinafter referred to as the 'DCRG' in short) at the higher rate subject to the higher limit prescribed as on 31/3/2017. The petitioners claim that there is hostile discrimination insofar as prescription of the date of 31/3/2017; enabling retirees subsequent to that date to get the benefit. The prescription of 31/3/2017, for payment of the higher benefits of DCRG, is without any intelligent differentia, is the short but compelling ground raised, to buttress which reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Association of College and University Superannuated Teachers Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 908 of 2013 delivered on 30/1/2013.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S.B.K Mangalam, Sri. Abhinav Srivastav and Sri. Kumar Kaushik as also Sri. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General for the State.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners specifically pointed to Rule-27 of the Bihar Pension Rules, which defines pension as, including gratuity. Gratuity on severance from employment is a one-time measure, and since it is included in the definition of pension, it is not a largesse and is a right entitled to the superannuating employees. The revision having been made effective from 1/1/2016, there is no rationale for not making the enhancement of gratuity also applicable from 1/1/2016. It was argued that the adoption of 1/4/2017 in Annexure-1 is discriminatory, insofar as it does not grant the enhanced DCRG from 1/1/2016, from which date the pension has been revised, though only notionally.