State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Noor Bano Etc. Etc.

HANSARIA, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides. The short but important question which needs to be decided in these appeals is regarding the extent of entitlement of "pre-01.09.1986 pensioner" in the State of Rajasthan under Government Order of even number dated 02.12.1989. 2. To decide the aforesaid question we need first to note the Govern­ ment Order of October 20, 1987 on the subject of grant of minimum \ . pension and family pension to pre·Ol.09.1986 State Government's pen- \. sioners. This order states that the pension admissible to the just mentioned class of pensioners "taken together" would not be less than Rs. 300 per E month. This amount has been said in the order to include original pension plus 'temporary increases in pension' and 'increases in pension'. Then came the order of December 2, 1989 on the subject of grant of additional relief to the aforesaid class of pensioners. It states, inter alia, that the additional 4' relief shall be admissible to the pre-01.09.1986 pensioners at such rate F which would depend upon the date of their retirement. The amount of additional relief varies from Rs. 50 to Rs. 175. May we state that in the present appeals we are not· concerned about the reasonableness of the classification based on the dates of retirement. All that we have been called upon to decide is whether in case of those pre-01-09-1986 pensioners, who G were to receive as per the order of October 20, 1987 minimum of Rs. 300, a further sum of Rs. 75 visualised by the second order has to be paid in all cases. 3. The view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan in the impugned judgment is that all the above pensioners would be entitle to additional H relief. The State has preferred ibis appeal by special leaves. STATEOFRAJ.v. N.BANO[HANSARIA,J.] 311 4. The learned State counsel has put on record, alongwith his written A .. submission, not only the relevant orders issued from time to time by the State Government, but.calculation charts also in the annexures. Annexure 'A' deals with those pre-01.09.1986 pensioners who retired prior to 01.09.1976. Of these retirees, the consolidated pension of the first four categories, even after including additional relief of 15% which was granted B by the order of December 2,1989, varies from Rs. 254 to Rs.286.50. The pension to admissible to them by virtue of the Government Order of October 20, 1987 would, however, be Rs. 300. If thesr retirees have to be given a further sum of Rs.75, as is the contention on behalf of the respon­ dents, the amount of consolidated pension they would get would exceed that which other categories of such retirees would get, inasmuch as the C consolidated pension of the latter category varies from Rs, 301.50 to Rs. lCl'.IQ. It is apparent that such a consequence was not desired by the order . of December 2, 1989 nor can such a consequence be allowed to happen. 5. We, therefore, hold that the additional relief visualised by the Government Order of December 2, 1989 would not be available to those D pre-01.09.1986 pensioners whose consolidated pension is below to Rs. 300, beyond that reflected Annexure 'A', or for that in Annexure 'B'. To put the matter beyond doubt, we observe that the first four categories of Government employees, about whom mention has been made in Anm:xure 'A' and first five mentioned in Annexure 'B' would not receive, even by the E force of the Government Order of December 2, 1989, anything beyond Rs. 300. 6. The view taken by the High Court is modified as stated above and the appeals stand allowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of _J the case, we make no order as to costs. F T.NA Appeal Allowed. -)