Supreme Court Upholds State's Cut-off Date for University Pension Scheme, Sets Aside High Court Order. Cut-off Date of 1.1.1990 Held Reasonable and Not Arbitrary Under Article 14, Following Ratan Behari Dey and P.N. Menon.

Writ petitions challenging the cut-off date (1.1.1990) for applicability of pension scheme to university teachers in Rajasthan; appeals against High Court order extending scheme to those retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990.

Respondents (retired teachers) sought direction that revised pension scheme be applied to them from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1990; appellants sought setting aside of High Court judgment and dismissal of writ petitions.

Teachers who retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990 claimed they were arbitrarily excluded from pension scheme solely due to cut-off date, while those retiring on or after 1.1.1990 got benefits; alleged violation of Article 14.

Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court allowed writ petitions, directed pension scheme applicable to all including those retired prior to 1.1.1986. Division Bench on 30.8.1994 modified, held scheme applicable only to those retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990, not prior. That judgment followed in subsequent writ petition for M.L. Sukhadia University teachers.

Whether fixing 1.1.1990 as cut-off date for introduction of pension scheme in Rajasthan universities was arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Whether the High Court was justified in substituting the date of 1.1.1986 in place of 1.1.1990. Whether the benefit of High Court judgment should be given to respondents who retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990 on ground that University did not file appeal and thus accepted the decision.

Appellants: The State Government decided as policy to introduce pension w.e.f. 1.1.1990; financial implications required approval; cut-off date was reasonable and not arbitrary; High Court erred in not following Ratan Behari Dey and P.N. Menon. Respondents: The University had asked for extension of time to implement judgment and did not appeal, hence accepted the decision; therefore benefit of High Court judgment should be given to those retired between 1986-1990.

The State or employer has power to specify a date from which revision of pensionary benefits shall take effect; such date must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and can be based on financial considerations. A cut-off date fixed on economic grounds to limit retrospective operation of pension scheme is valid under Article 14. Courts should not interfere with policy decisions unless arbitrary or discriminatory.

It is evident that for introducing a pension scheme, which envisaged financial implications, approval of the Rajasthan Government was required. The Government had stated in its affidavit before the High Court that the justification of the cut-off date of 1.1.1990 was 'wholly economic'. Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut-off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. These appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed.

Writ petitions were filed in Rajasthan High Court by retired university teachers. A Single Judge allowed all writ petitions, directing pension scheme applicable to all including those retired prior to 1.1.1986. On appeal, a Division Bench by judgment dated 30.8.1994 modified the order, holding pension scheme applicable only to those retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990. This judgment was followed in another writ petition for M.L. Sukhadia University teachers. State of Rajasthan filed appeals by special leave before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeals together.

• Jodhpur University Act, 1962:
• Constitution of India: Article 12, Article 14
• University Pension Regulations 1990:
• General Provident Fund Regulations 1990: