Holding

The classification of pensioners based on the date of retirement is a reasonable measure linked to the increase in superannuation age and does not infringe Article 14; the petitions are dismissed.

Summary

The Andhra Pradesh Government promulgated the Revised Pension Rules, 1980, creating two categories of pensioners: Part I for those retiring on or after 29 October 1979 and Part II for those who retired between 1 April 1978 and 28 October 1979. The petitioners, who fell in Part II, alleged that the differential treatment violated Article 14 of the Constitution and the precedent set in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India. The State argued that the distinction was necessary because the superannuation age was raised from 55 to 58 years effective 29 October 1979, and that both categories ultimately received 50 % of their average emoluments as pension, with comparable gratuity and family pension benefits. The Court examined the rationale behind the classification, found a reasonable nexus to the increased retirement age, and held that there was no arbitrary discrimination. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the distinction between Part I and Part II pensioners under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India is applicable to the present facts.
Whether the differential pension formulas constitute arbitrary discrimination.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980
Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

Article 14DiscriminationPensionSuperannuation ageAndhra PradeshCivil serviceConstitutional lawEqual protection

Judgment

\• ~·
CHAUDHARY KESA VA RAO AND ORS. ETC.
A
'·
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AUGUST 24. 1990

[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] B

Civil Services: Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980:
Parts I and JI-Division of government servants-Based on dates of
retirement-Whether discriminatory .
,.•
The Andhra Pradesh State Government appointed a Pay Revision
Commissioner in 1977, for revision of pay-scales in respect of its
c
employees. The Commissioner was also directed to review the then
existing retirement benefits and to make suitable recommendations
regarding extension of retirement benefits. He submitted his report and
recommended that the revised scales be made effective from 1.4. 78. He
also recommended that the retirement age should be increased from· 55 D
years to 58 years.

Accepting the report, the State Government implemented the
recommendations regarding pay-scales effective from 1.4.78. The
recommendation regarding increase in retirement age was.implemented
with effect from 29.10.1979. J!
The State Government promulgated the Revised Pension Rules,
1980, which made a distinction between Government servants who were
in service as on 29th October, 1979 (Part-I) and those Governmenf
servants who retired/died in between 1.4. 78 and 28.10. 79. (Part-II).
F
By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenged the Revised
Pension Rules, 1980 on the ground that the said Rules created two
different categories of pensioners with different rates of pension which
was completely arbitrary and in violation of this Court's decision in
D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165.
G
The Respondent State contended that the increase in the age of
superannuation could not be implemented retrospectively as it would
have led to a lot of difficulties, but to compensate those who retired
after April 1, 1978 and before October 29, 1979 the Government gave
them certain benefits. It was further contended that since the date of
-{
superannuation was enhanced to 58 years on 29.10.1979 it was neces, H

5
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. l S.C.R.

sary to draw a line between those who re"tired earlier to that date and those
A
who retired subsequent to 29.10.1979, which was not arbitrary and the
rules guarantee 50% of pension to both categories irrespective of the
date ofretirement.

Dismissing the writ petitions,
B
HELD: 1. The claim of the petitioners is based on a complete
misconception of the Rules. A perusal of the Rules clearly goes to show
that Part-I of the Rules was no doubt made applicable to all Govern-
ment servants who would retire on or after 29.10.1979 while Part-II ',i,
was made applicable to such Government servants who were holding
pensionable posts on 31st March, 1978 and who retired between 1st
c April, 1978 and 28th October, 1979 and this distinction was necessary
in view of the fact that the age of superannuation for retirement was
increased from SS years to 58 years w.e.f. 29th October, 1979. [9G-H; lOA]

2. All the benefits have been granted to the pensioners like the
D petitioners who had retired between I.4.1978 and 29.10.1979 in the
amount of pension, retirement gratuity and family pension as granted
to the Government servants falling under Part-I. So far as the amount
of pension is concerned, the formula of completed six monthly periods
of qualifying service was worked out as 30/60 of average emoluments
which was equal to SO% of the pay. On account of the fact that the
E Government servants falling in Part-I are retiring at the superannua-
tion age of 58 years the above formula was claculated as 33/66 which
was also 50% of the average emoluments. Similarly in the case of retire-
ment gratuity and family pension no distinction has been made in the
case of the two categories of pensioners. This clearly goes to show that
neither there is any discrimination nor any disadvantage to the pension-
F ers falling in the category of petitioners and the formula working out
the amount of pension is based on a rational principle and it cannot be
said that such differential rates have no reasonable nexus to the object
sought to be achieved or the same are in any manner viol•tive of Article
14 of the Constitution. [lOA-D]

G D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 16S;
distinguished.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 888-892
of 1987, 757of !988and316ofl989. ,.
H (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
.., .,.
K. RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [KASLJWAL, J.J 7

H.S. Gururaja Rao, Mrs. C. Markandeya and S. Markandeya
A
for the Petitioners.

Krishnamurthy Iyer, P. Parthasarthi and T.V.S.N. Chari for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

KASLIW AL, J, The above mentioned bunch of writ petitions
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the
i.
retired Government servants of the Government of Andhra Pradesh
having retired in between !st April, 1978 and 28th October, 1979. The
case of the petitioners is that in pursuance to persistent demands made
by the State Government Employees to revise their pay scales the
c
Andhra Pradesh Government by Government Order dated November
3, 1977 appointed Shri A. Kri_shnaswamy, l.A.S. (Retd.) as the Pay
Revision Commissioner. By another Government Order dated
January 28, 1978 the Pay Revision Commissioner was also directed to
review the existing retirement benefits inter alia to all employees of the D
State Government and to examine the question of extension of retire-
ment benefits and make suitable recommendations in that regard. The
Pay Revision Commissioner submitted a report comprised of five
volumes. The Commission recommended that the date from which the
revised scales of pay would be given effect to should be April I, 1978.
In Paragraphs 9 .42 to 9 .45 of its report the Pay Revision Commissioner E
specifically recommended that the age of retirement should be increa-
sed from 55 years to 58 years. It has been alleged that so far as the
recommendations of the Commission in regard to the increased pay
scales are concerned, the same were accepted and implemented by the
State Government w.e.f. April I, 1978. But so far as the recommenda-
lion in regard to increase in the age of superannuation from 55 years to F
58 years, the same was implemented only w.e.f. October 29, 1979
through G.O.M.S. No. 283 Finance and Planning.

- It has also been alleged by the petitioners that the State Govern-
ment issued G.O. (P) No. 88 Finance and Planning dated March 26.
1980 whereby the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 were promulgated.
The above rules divided the Government servants for the purpose of
G

pension into two parts, Part-I applying to all Government servants
who were in service on 29th October, 1979 and Part-II applying to such
-{ of the Government servants who retired/died in between !st April,
1978 and 28th October, 1979 (both dates inclusive). The contention of
the petitioners is that by the above Rules two categories of pensioners H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

were created with different rates of pension which is completely
A
arbitrary and in violation of the law declared by this Hon'ble Court in
D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165. The
petitioners have, therefore, prayed that pension rules Part-II which
has been made applicable to Government servants having retired bet-
ween 1st April, 1978 and 28th October, 1979 be quashed and it may be
directed that they would also be governed by Part-I of the Rules which
is applicahle to those Government servants who were in service on
29th October, 1979.

The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of
Andhra Pradesh. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Pay
Revision Commissioner was appointed to review the structure of diffe-
c teht scales of Pay, dearness allowance and other compensatory allo-
wance of all categories of employees of the State Government, Local
Bodies and Aided Institutions as well as work charge establishments.
An additional term of reference was added for reviewing the existing
retirement benefit of all categories. After carefully considering all the
D relevaht factors the Government implemented the recommendations
relating to revision of scales of pay w.e.f. 1st April, 1978. As regards
the age of superannuation, the Government of Andhra Pradesh
increased the age of superannuation to 58 years w.e.f. October 29,
1979. This increase in the age of superannuation could not be imp-
lemented retrospectively as it would have led to a lot of difficulties, but
E to compensate those who retired after April 1, 1978 and before Oc-
tober 29, 1979 the Government gave them benefits as under:

( 1) The pension formula was increased from 33/80 to 30/60 for
all those who retired between 1.4.1978 and 28.10.1979. This
increase was specifically given as they would not have otherwise
F been entitled to the revised pension formula of 33/66 which had
been applied only to such Government servants who retired after
29.10.1979. .

(2) Formula for calculation of gratuity was increased to ]/3rd of
emoluments for each completed six months period of qualifying
G service subject to a maximum of 20 months emoluments and
limited to Rs.30,000. Earlier the formula was 1/4th of pay for
every six months service subject to a maximum of 16'/z times and
emoluments lif'lited to Rs.30,000.

(3) The Family pe~sion was increased to 30% of the last drawn
H pay without any maximum limit. Earlier the rates of Family
K. RAO v. STATE OF A.P. [KASLIWAL, l.I 9

pension were different for different ranges of pay and the
A
minimum was Rs.60 and maximum Rs.2SO.

It was further submitted in the counter affidavit that the distinc-
tion between the pensioners in Part-I and II is based on the date of
retirement and is clearly connected with the age of superannuation
which was raised from SS years to S8 years. It is not correct to say that B
the Government had arbitrarily divided the pensioners into two
groups. As the date of superannuation was enhanced to S8 years on
29.10. 1979 it was necessary to draw a line between those who retired
earlier to that date and those who retired subsequent to 29.10.1979. It
was pointed out that the pen~ion formula would be 30/60 for those who
retired between 1.4. 1978 and 28. 10.1979 and their pension worked out
on the basis of 30/60 of the average emoluments and in respect of those c
who retired on or after 29.10.1979, it would be worked out as 33/66.
Thus both the rules guarantee SO% of pension irrespective of date of
retirement.

It was also pointed out in the counter affidavit that a writ petition D
(civil) No. 12605/8S was filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Govern-
ment Retired Officers Association and Others v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh and Others on identical grounds and the same was
dismissed by this Hon'ble Court by an order dated 2.3.1987. In the
above case it was held that "In view of the averments contained in
paragraph 2(d) and 3 of the counter-affidavit, it is quite clear that the E
State Government was fully alive to improve the pensionary benefit of
those who had already retired prior to October 29, 1979 and accord-
ingly enhanced the rates of pension. We are satisfied that there is a
discernible basis for differential rates of pension and it cannot be said
<. that such differential rates have no reasonable nexus to the object
sought to be achieved or that they offend Article 14 of the Constitu- F
tion. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed".

We have heard the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for
both the parties and have thoroughly perused the records and the
Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. We are fully convinced
that the claim of the petitioners is based on a complete misconception G
of the Rules. A perusal of the Rules clearly goes to show that Part-I 01
the Rules was no doubt made applicable to all Government servants
who would retire on or after 29.10.1979 while Part-II was made applic-
able to such Government servants who were holding pensionable posts
on 31st March, 1978 and who retired between !st April, 1978 and 28th
October, 1979 and this distinction was necessary in view of the fact H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A that the age of superannuation for retirement was increased from 55
years to 58 years w.e.f. 29th October, 1979. However, all the benefits
have been gran.ted to the pensioners like the petitioners who had
retired between 1.4.1978 and 29.10.1979 in the amount of pension,
retirement gratuity and family pension as granted to the Government
B servants falling under Part I. So far as the amount of pension is con-
cerned, the formula of completed six monthly periods of qualifying
service was worked out as 30/60 of average emoluments which was
equal to 50% of the pay. On account of the fact that the Government
servants falling in Part-I and retiring at the superannuation age of 58
years the above formula was calculated at 33/66 which was also 50% of
the average emoluments. Similarly in the case of retirement gratuity
c and family pension no distinction has been made in the case of the two
categories of pensioners·. This clearly goes to show that neither there is
any discrimination nor any disadvantage to the pensioners falling in
the category of petitioners and the formula working out the amount of
pension is based on a rational principle and it cannot be said that such
differential rates have no reasonable nexus to the object sought to be
D achieved or the same are in any manner violative of Art. 14 of the
Constitution.

In view of the circumstances mentioned above the case of D.S.
Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, (supra) is not at all applicable in the
facts and circumstances of this case and renders no assistance to the
E petitioners.

In the result we find no force in these writ petitions and the same
are dismissed with no order as to costs.

G.N. Petitions dismissed.