State of Ratasthan and Anr. v. Amrit Lal Gandhi and Ors

... KIRPAL, J. Leave granted. The common question of law which arises in these appeals by special leave relates to the date with effect from H 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R. A which the revised pension is to be paid to the teachers of the J ai Narayan Vyas University and Mohan Lal Sukhadia University who had retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1990. Though the facts in these appeals are similar, for the purpose of this judgment, we need only refer to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 9710-9717 B of 1995 and S.L.P.(C) No. 19231 of 1996 which arise from the judgment dated 30.8.1994 of the Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 115/1993 which considered the rival contentions of the parties on merit. The said judgment has been foll~ed by the High Court while allowing the writ petition from which Civil Appeal No. 9718 of 1995 arises. In 1962, Jodhpur University Act, 1962 was promulgated. For the teaching staff of the University contributory provident fund rules were framed and there was no pension scheme which was applicable to them. It appears that the University Grant Commission in 1983 constituted D a committee known as Mehrotra Committee to examine the structure of emoluments and also the conditions of service of the University and College teachers. The Mehrotra Committee submitted its report in 1986, containing E various recommendations. One of the recommendations related to extend­ . ing pension-cum-gratuity scheme to the teachers of Universities and col­ leges. Pursuant to the said recommendations, resolutions were passed in 1986 by the Syndicate of University of Jodhpur (now known as Jai Narayan F Vyas University) and approved by the University Senate for the introduc- r 'l tion of pensionary scheme in the University. According to this scheme, option was to the given to the university employees to opt either for contributory provident fund or for pension in lieu of the provident fund. Draft rules providing for payn~ent of pension were also approved. As the proposed scheme had financial implications, the University had to seek the approval of the Government. The Education Department of the Rajasthan Government, vide its letter dated 16.4.1991, informed the Vice-chancellors of the Rajasthan University, Jaipur, Jodhpur University, Jodhpur, M.L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Ajmer University, Ajmer and H Kata Open University, Kata that the State Government had decided to ' ) STATE v. AL. GANDHI [KIRPAL, J.] 125 introduce the pension scheme in the Universities of the State w.e.f. A 1.1.1990. It is pursuant thereto that the cabinet of the Jodhpur University on 24.4.1991 approved the resolutions of the Syndicate and the Senate providing for the introduction of the pension scheme. Thereafter Pension Regulations 1990 and General Provident Fund Regulations 1990 were framed and on 3.8.1991 options were invited from all persons who were in B the service of the University of Jodhpur on or after 1.1.1990 to give their options whether they wanted to be covered by the Providend Fund Regula­ tions or desired to be covered by the Pension Regulations of 1990. Thereafter, several writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Rajasthan. Two writ petitions were filed by the erstwhile teachers of the C Rajasthan University who had retired prior to 1.1.1986 while eight writ petitions were filed by those who had retired between 1.1.1986. and 1.1.1990. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed all the aforesaid writ petitions and directed that the revised pension scheme should be ·made D applicable to all the petitioners including those who had retired prior to 1.1.1986. Appeals were then filed before the Division Bench which, vide judgment dated 30.8.1994, held that the revised pension scheme should be made applicable to only those employees who had retired between 1.1.1986. and 1.1.1990. As already noticed above, the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench was followed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3489 of 1993 filed by the retired university teachers of the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur from which Civil Appeal No. 9718 of 1995 arises. On behalf of the appellants, main arguments were addressed by Shri Tapas Ray, Sr. learned counsel in C.A. 9718 of 1995. He referred to the observations of the High Court to the effect that the Mehrotra Committee had made its recommendations in 1986 and the Syndicate and Senate of the University had approved of the grant of pension to those employees who had retired after 1.1.1986, and there was no reason as to why the G Pension Regulations should have been made applicable with effect from 1.1.1990. It was contended by Shri Ray that the High Court overlooked the fact that the Pension Regulations which were framed and were made applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1990 in view of the decision of the State of Rajasthan contained in its letter dated 16.4.1991. He further submitted that the date, H 126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 1 S.C.R. A as to when pension scheme was to be made applicable, was a policy matter. The Government having decided, as a matter of policy, that all the Univer­ sities in Rajasthan were to introduce the pension w.e.f. 1.1.1990, the said decision could not, it was submitted, be challenged. Mr. Ray drew out attention to the decisions of this Court in State of West Be11gala11d Others v. Ratan Behwi Dey and Others, [1993) 4 SCC 62 and Union of India V. P.N. Menon and Others, (1994] 4 sec 68 and contended that the High Court fell in error in not following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions in which it was clearly held that a particular cut-off date could be fixed while granting pensionary benefits. In Rata11 Behari case (supra), the Calcutta Corporation had in force a provident fund scheme. A demand was raised in 1977 for the introduction of a pension scheme. A three member committee was constituted and pursuant to its recommendations, which were accepted by the Government with some modifications. Pension Regulations were framed in 1982. Effect D was given to these Regulations on and from 1.4.1977. The fixing of the date of 1.4.1977 was challenged by some of the members of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation who had retired prior to 1.4.1977. The Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petitions by holding that the date of 1.4.1977, with effect from when the Pension Regulations were to come into effect, E was non est and void. While allowing the appeals, and dismissing the writ petitions, this Court examined the reasons why the date 1.4.1977 has been fixed and then observed as follows : "Now, 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. So long as such date is specified in a reasonable manner, i.e., without bringing about a discrimination between similarly situated persons, no in­ terference is called for by the court in that behalf." /11 P.N. Menon case (supra) the question again arose with regard to H fixing of cut-off date for payment of gratuity and pension. In that case the r )