SQN LM K BAKSHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the Order dated 4-12-2002 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 4261/2000, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant, after serving the Indian Air Force as Airman (pre-commissioned) for 16 years and 114 days and as a commissioned officer for 12 years 302 days, retired on 30-4-1978. THE last rank held by him was of Squardron Leader. After adding weightage of eight years for the rank Squardron Leader, as per the Rules, his actual period of service comes to 37 years and 51 days. As per the existing rules, only 2/3 of his pre-commissioned service was to be credited and as such his pre-commissioned service was treated as 10 years and 315 days (2/3 of 16 years and 114 days) and after adding the full service tenure of 12 years and 302 days as Commissioned officer, his total service tenure was treated as 31 years 252 days as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

(3.) IN State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Ratan Behari Dey & Ors. (4), the Apex Court held as under:- " It is open to the State or to the Corporation, as the case may be, to change the conditions of service unilaterally. Terminal benefits as well as pensionary benefits constitute conditions of service. The employer has the undoubted power to revise the salaries and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary benefits. The power to specify a date from which the revision of pay scales or terminal benefits/pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is a concomitant of the said power. The State can specify a date with effect from which the Regulations framed, or amended, as the case may be, shall come into force. It was within the power of the Corporation to enforce the Regulations either prospectively or with retrospective effect from such date as they might specify. Only condition is that in such cases the State cannot, pick a date out of its hat. It has to prescribe the date in a reasonable manner, having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances. So long as such date is specified in a reasonable manner, i. e. without bringing about a discrimination between similarly situated persons, no interference is called for by the Court in that behalf on ground of discrimination. "