Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by special leave filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu against an order of the Administrative Tribunal, Madras dated April 22, 1996 in O.A. No.159/90. The dispute concerned the pension eligibility of a former government servant who had voluntarily retired in 1970. The respondent had initially been appointed in a contingent establishment on November 20, 1942, and was later regularised as an Attendant on February 18, 1945. He tendered voluntary resignation by letter dated June 6, 1970, which the Government accepted with effect from March 19, 1970; the judgment also states that he voluntarily retired on March 20, 1970. After retirement, he joined another institution. Under the pre-existing rules, a government servant was required to complete 30 years of qualifying service to be eligible for pensionary benefits. Subsequently, G.O.Ms. No.1537 came into effect, which provided that a government servant who had attained the age of 50 years or completed 25 years of qualifying service could retire voluntarily with appropriate notice. The effective date of this G.O. is mentioned in the judgment as November 13, 1972, though at another point it is stated as March 1, 1972. The respondent had rendered approximately 25 years of regular service and two years of temporary service, leaving a shortfall of three years for the 30-year pension requirement. The Administrative Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to pension on completing 25 years of qualifying service by applying G.O.Ms. No.1537. The Government challenged this as illegal, contending that the G.O. could not be given retrospective effect because it came into force after the respondent had already voluntarily retired. The Supreme Court agreed with the Government's position, holding that the Tribunal's view was clearly illegal since the amended rule could not be applied retrospectively to an employee who had retired before its commencement. However, taking note of the respondent's two years of temporary service and the shortfall of three years, the Court directed the Government to consider whether the respondent was eligible for pensionary benefits under appropriate procedure or whether relaxation could be given, and to pass appropriate orders within four months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Qualifying Service - Not mentioned - The respondent was appointed in contingent establishment in 1942 and regularised as Attendant in 1945; he voluntarily retired in 1970 before G.O.Ms. No.1537 came into force, which reduced qualifying service for pension from 30 years to 25 years. The Administrative Tribunal held him entitled to pension on completing 25 years of qualifying service under the G.O. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's view was clearly illegal because the G.O. cannot be given retrospective effect. Held that the government order amending pension rules cannot apply to an employee who retired before its effective date. B) Service Law - Pension - Relaxation/Shortfall - Not mentioned - The Court noted that the respondent had rendered two years of temporary service and there was a shortfall of three years for computing pension under the pre-existing 30-year requirement. The Court directed the Government to consider whether the respondent is eligible for pensionary benefits under appropriate procedure or whether relaxation may be given, and to pass appropriate orders within four months from receipt of the order. Held that the Government is at liberty to consider relaxation of pension rules for the respondent.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, who voluntarily retired on March 20, 1970, is entitled to pension on completing 25 years of qualifying service under G.O.Ms. No.1537, which came into force after his retirement, given the pre-existing requirement of 30 years.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of. Tribunal's view held illegal. Government directed to consider respondent's case for pensionary benefits or relaxation within four months from date of receipt of order. No costs.
Law Points
- Government orders amending pension rules cannot be given retrospective effect to benefit employees who retired before the amendment
- qualifying service for pension was 30 years under pre-existing rules
- G.O.Ms. No.1537 reducing qualifying service to 25 years came into force after respondent's voluntary retirement
- court can direct government to consider relaxation for shortfall in qualifying service
- temporary service may be counted subject to rules
