Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M.C. Dhingra, while working in State Service from January 31, 1948, was selected as a Railway Magistrate and took charge on February 1, 1973. He later retired, and when he sought proportionate pension by counting his previous temporary service, the request was denied. The Government of India had issued a Circular on March 31, 1982, which, with the concurrence of State Governments, provided for sharing of pensionary liability on a reciprocal basis for temporary employees who had rendered service under Central or State Governments before securing posts in the other government. The circular allowed counting of qualifying service both under Central and State Governments for grant of pension by the government from where they eventually retire, subject to refund of any gratuity received for temporary service. It classified government servants into three categories: (1) those retrenched and re-employed, (2) those who applied through proper channel with permission, and (3) those who applied directly without permission and resigned. Benefit was allowed only to categories (1) and (2). Clause 4 of the circular stated that the arrangement would come into force from the date of issue and cases of government servants retiring on that date and thereafter would be regulated accordingly. The appellant filed O.A. No.2335/89 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which dismissed the application on October 19, 1994 on the ground of delay. Hence, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The respondent Union of India contended that clause 4 of the circular prescribed that it would apply only to government servants retiring on or after March 31, 1982, and since the appellant had retired on February 1, 1973, he was not eligible. The Supreme Court found no force in this contention. It noted that all persons who rendered temporary service prior to joining Government of India service had been given the benefit of fixation of pension by tagging temporary service, and that the cut-off date was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court followed the ratio in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305] and R.L. Marwah v. Union of India & Ors. [(1987) 3 SCR 928], which held that such restrictions are arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court held that clause 4 of the Circular was unconstitutional. However, the appellant was held entitled to pro rata pension from March 1982. The appeal was allowed with no costs, and the respondents were directed to work out and release the pension within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality Before Law - Arbitrariness of Cut-off Date - Constitution of India, Article 14 - Government circular dated 31 March 1982 provided for sharing pension liability and counting previous temporary service but clause 4 limited benefit to those retiring on or after 31 March 1982 - Court held such cut-off date created an arbitrary classification among similarly circumstanced employees and was violative of Article 14, following D.S. Nakara v. Union of India and R.L. Marwah v. Union of India - Held that restriction in clause 4 is unconstitutional. (Paras 1-4) B) Service Law - Pension - Counting of Temporary Service and Pro Rata Pension - Government of India Circular dated 31 March 1982 - Appellant had rendered temporary service under State Government and later joined Central Government as Railway Magistrate; denied benefit of counting previous service for pension due to retirement before cut-off - Court allowed appeal and directed that appellant be entitled to pro rata pension from March 1982 and that respondents work out and release pension within six months - Held appeal allowed with no costs. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether clause 4 of the Government of India Circular dated 31 March 1982, which restricts benefit of counting previous temporary service to those who retired on or after 31 March 1982, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that clause 4 of the Circular dated 31 March 1982 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and therefore unconstitutional. The appellant was held entitled to pro rata pension from March 1982. The respondents were directed to work out and release the pension within six months from the date of receipt of the order. No costs.
Law Points
- Proportionate pension liability sharing between Central and State Governments for temporary service
- Cut-off date in pension circular arbitrary and violative of Article 14
- Government servants in categories (1) and (2) entitled to count previous temporary service
- Category (3) not entitled
- Pro rata pension from date of circular
