Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding that the denial of pension benefits was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, and dismissed the appeals.

Summary

Bachan Singh joined the Haryana State Electricity Board as a work‑charge employee in 1963 and was regularised as Head Mistry in 1981. The Board issued circulars in 1993 and 1994 asking work‑charge employees to elect, in writing, whether to count their prior service towards pension or remain in the EPF scheme, with a three‑month deadline. Singh claimed he never received or acknowledged the circulars, later exercised the option, and sought pension benefits for the entire period of service, but the Board calculated his pension only from 1981, denying the earlier service. The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the Board failed to produce any record of Singh’s acknowledgment, inferred he had no knowledge of the options, and that denying his pension was unreasonable and violative of Article 14. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view, holding that the denial was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the constitutional guarantee of equality, and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the denial of pensionary benefits to a work‑charge employee who was later regularised violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the circulars issued by the employer requiring a written option were valid and enforceable in the absence of proof of the employee’s knowledge or acknowledgment.
Whether the employer’s failure to produce a record of the employee’s written option justifies denial of pension benefits.
Whether the High Court’s order granting the employee the right to exercise the option was a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion.

Subjects

Article 14Equality before lawPensionary benefitsWork‑charge employeeService lawArbitrarinessCircularsEmployee provident fundRegularisation

Judgment

l2009111 S.C.R. 710
,.-
y ,._
A DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & OTHERS
v.
BACHAN SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 2009)
JULY 30, 2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Service law: Retirement benefits - Circulars issued "
c asking employees to give option for retiral benefits -
Respondent-employee did not exercise option - Benefits
denied - W~it petition - High Court held that employer failed
to produce record showing that the circulars were actually
noted in writing by employee, which led to inference that he
D had no knoyvledge about the options called by employer -
-
Interference with - Held: High Court's order was rational, just I( - I

and fair and calls for no interference.
I

ConstitutiOn of (ndia, 1950: Article 14 - All persons
similarly placed to be treated alike, both in privileges
E
conferred and liabilities imposed - Equal Jaws to be applied ..-
-~
to all in the same situation without any discrimination -
Service law.

Respondent joined the services of appellant as a
F work charge employees on 16.5.1963. He was regularized
as Head Mistry w.e.f 14.10.1981. He was a member of
~ - i-
Employees Provident Fund Scheme. He superannuated
on 28.2.2001. The appellant computed respondent's
pensionary benefits by taking into account only the
G services rendered by him on regular basis and he was
denied benefits of the services rendered by him w.e.f.
16.5.1963 to 13.10.1981 on work-charge basis. ~

The appellant had issued instructions dated 6.8.1993
H 710
DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. v. 711
BACHAN SINGH

whereby work charge employees were given three A
months time to submit an option as to whether they
intended to count the period of work charged service
rendered towards pensionary benefits or intended to
continue to be a member of EPF and in case of opting ,
for pensionary benefits, employee was required to refund B
the entire amount of employee's contribution towards
their EPF for crediting to GPF Account. The appellants
issued another circular dated 9.8.1994 allowing the said
" emplpyees who could not exercise their option in
response to the circular dated 6.8.19-93 to opt for c
pensionary benefits. After the retirement of respondent,
appellant calculated his pension and retiral benefits w.e.f
..
•
14.10.1981 and not from 16.5.1963. According to
appellants, the respondent did no exercise his option in
response to the circulars. Aggrieved respondent filed writ 0
petition before High Court, which was allowed. Hence
present appeals.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The principle underlying the guarantee of E
Article 14 of the Constitution is that all persons similarly
placed ~hall be treated alike, both in privileges conferred
and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be
... applied to all in the same situation without any
discrimination. [Para 20) [723-E-F] F

2. It would be totally unreasonable and irrational to
deny the respondent the pensionary benefits under the
scheme particularly when the appellants failed to produce
any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993
and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing by the G
respondent. In the absence of any such material it can
..; "' well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge
about the options called by the appellants. The view
taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

\(
A impugned judgment is indeed a rational, just and fair view
and no interference is called for. [Paras 26 and 27) [725-
G-H; 726-A-B]

Subrata Sen & Others v. Union of India & Others 2001(8)
SCC 71; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu &Anr. (1974)
B
4 SCC 3; Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr. (1978)
1 SCC 248; D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1
SCC 305; Ajay Hasia & Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
& Others (1981) 1 sec 722, relied on.
c Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab AIR 1988 (Punjab) 265
(FB), referred to.

Case Law Reference :

AIR 1988 (Punjab) 265 (FB) referred to Para 15
D
2001 (8) sec 11 relied on Para 18
w
(1974) 4 sec 3 relied on Para 19

(1978) 1 sec 248 relied on Para 22
E (1983) 1 sec 305 relied on Para 23
(1981) 1 sec 122 relied on Para 24

F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4903 of 2009. I
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.07.2005 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No. 3729 of 2004.

G WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 4904-4913 of 2009 arising out of SLP (C)
~
Nos. 5787, 7284, 8267, 8986, 10462, 12856, 12354, 17243,
16411, 16580 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos.4914-4937 of 2009
arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 1241, 1786, 3882, 3194, 3680,
H
DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. v. 713
BACHAN SINGH
~ )/ 3710,4879,4075,6863, 7003,9388,8236, 7502, 7572, 7606, A
7614, 8235, 12454, 12253, 19184, 18120, 19301, 7930 &
2483 of 2007, Civil Appeal Nos. 4938'4941 of 2009 arising
out of SLP (c) Nos. 14935, 17910, 27760 & 20584 of 2008
AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4942-4944 of 2009 (Arising out of
SLP (c) Nos. 3766, 3889 & 6240 of 2009. B

Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sandeep Chaturvedi, Sanjay Singh,
Ugra Shankar Prasad, Abha R. Sharma, for the Appellants.
,,;
Manjit Singh, B.S. More, AAG, B.S. Malik, Pranab Kumar
Mullick, S.K. Patri, Shish Pal Laler, Balbir Singh Gupta, Manoj c
Swarup, Akshat Goel, Jyoti Srivastava, Hetu Arore, Arvind
Minocha, R.K. Rathore, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Jasbir Singh
Malik, Daya Krishan Sharma, Gagan Gupta, Kamal Mohan .
Gupta, Gaurav Twatia, B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Nitin
Jain, Dr. Vipin Gupta, K. Sarada Devi, R.K. Kapoor, Sanjana D
J. Bali, Shweta Kapoor, Harish Chandra Pant, Mansi Dhiman,
·- . Gunjan Sinha, Anis Ahmed Khan, Shashi Bhushan, Vivekta
Singh, B.K. Satija, S.K. Sabharwal, Binay Kumar Jha,
Rameshwar Prased Goyal, T.V. George, Amit Singh, Kusum
Singh, R.C. Kaushik, V. Balaji, Pravesh Thakur, Narendra E
Kumar, S.S. Dahiya, Santosh Krish"8n, Debasis Misra, Dr.
Ramesh K. Haritash, Dr. Kailash Chand, Divya Godra, Madhu
Moolchandani, Himanshu Upadhyay, Nitin Kumar, Arunabh
Chandhary, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Rajesh Srivastava, Raghvendra
Pratap Singh, Suresh Kumari, Arvind Nayar, Kavita Wadia, for F
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted in all the
special leave petitions. G

2. These appeals are directed against the judgments and
... . orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .
--3, Basic controversy involved in all these appeals is of
H

--
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

,..
A similar nature. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to
recapitulate the facts incorporated in Civil Appeal No.4903 of
2009 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.23708 of 2005 filed against
the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No.3729 of 2004 on dated
B 28.7.2005.

4. The respondents herein has joined the services of the
appellant as Laboratory Attendant in work-charge capacity on
16.5.1963 and continued to perform his duties on work-charge
C basis on different posts until he was regularized as Head Mistry
•
w.e.f. 14.10.1981. The respondent was a member of the
Employees Provident Fund Scheme (for short 'EPF Scheme').
During the peniod he remained a work-charge employee, the
respondent had attained the age of superannuation and retired
from the service on 28.2.2001. The appellants computed
D respondent's pensionary benefits by taking into account only
the services rendered by him on regular basia and he was
denied benefits of the services rendered by him w.e.f.
16.5.1963 to 13.10.1981 on work-charge basis.

E 5. The appellants had issued instructions dated 6.8.1993
for the grant of benefit of work-charge service towards
pensionary benefits. The said letter of 6.8.1993 is reproduced
as under:-

"From:
F
The Additional Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board
(HSEB), Panchkula

Memo No. Ch.9/Pen/G-G-43(93) Dated 6.8.93
G
Sub: Amendment in the Punjab CSR Vol.II-Adoption of
State Govt. Notification

The Haryana State Electricity Board in its meeting
held on 23.6.1993 has approved the adoption of Haryana
H

-
DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. v: 715
BACHAN SINGH [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

-
I

'JI Govt. Notification No:1/2 (55)-88-2 FR-II dated 4.2.92 A
(copy enclosed for ready reference) with regard to the
counting of service rendered by the workers in the work
charged capacity towards pensionary benefit scheme.

2. However, most of the Board's workcharged employees
B
are members of Employees Provident Fund (EPF). As
such, the pensionary benefit would be subject to the
following conditions:-
,,;
(i) On regularization from workcharged to regular
employee, the employee has to submit an option c
within a period of 3 months from the date of
regularization or from the date of issue of this
circular, whichever is later as to whether he/she
intends to count the period of workcharged service
rendered by him/her towards pensionary benefits or D

- ,
intends to continue to be a member of E.PF. The
option is required to be furnished in writing to his
drawing & Disbursing Officer who will authenticate
and record its entry in the service book of the
employee and also paste the same in the service E
book so as to form a permanent record for future
reference. The Drawing & Disbursing Officer will
also inform about his/her option to the appointing
authority immediately.
F
~ (ii) The option once exercised will be final and not to
be allowed to be changed in any circumstances. In
case option is not given within the stipulated period
of three months, it will be presumed that he/she
intends to continue to be a member of EPF.
G
(iii) In case, he/she opts for pensionary benefits, he/she
. has to refund the entire amount of employee's
contribution along with interest thereon, towards
-'
their EPF in lumpsum for crediting to the Board's
1 account, Employee's contribution alongwith interest H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 11 S.C.R.

A is to be deposited with the Board for crediting to ..
his/her GPF account.

3. Similarly, the above benefit will also be available to the
pensioners/recipients of family pension of the Board on the
same terms and conditions with the exception that they will
B
have to deposit the amount contributed by the Board as
Employee's contribution towards EPF alongwith interest
thereon, in lumpsum. The pensioners/recipients of family
pension will have to give an Affidavit to the fact that he/
she will not claim any interest on the arrear of pensionary "'
c benefits which become payable due to adoption of the
State Govt. circular. The pensioners/recipient of family
pension will submit their option within 3 months from the
date of issue of this circular, for availing pensionary
benefits, to the Head of the office last attended. The option
once exercised will be final. In case, option is not given
within the stipulated period of 3 months, it will be presumed
~
that he/she intends to continue to be a member of EPF.

4. These instructions may please be got noted from all
E the employees and acknowledge and receipt of the letter.

Sd/-Under Secretary (PW) For Additional Secretary,
HSEB, Panchkula"

6. The work-charge employees were given three months
F time to submit an option to the appellants. The appellants t
issued another circular dated 9.8.1994 allowing the said
employees who could not exercise their option in response to
the circular dated 6.8.1993 to opt for pensionary benefits.
Circular dated 9.8.1994 reads as under:-
G
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

"From: ~ ...
The Additional Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board
H (HSEB), Panchkula
DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. v. 717
BACHAN SINGH [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
Memo No. Ch.30/Pen/G-43(93) Dated 9.8.94 A
Sub: Amendment in the Punjab CSR Vol.II regarding
counting of workcharged service towards
pensionary benefits - Clarification thereof.

The Haryana State Electricity Board in its meeting 8
held on 23.6.1993 had approved the adoption of Haryana
Govt. Notification No.1/2(55)-86-2 FR-II dated 4.2.92 and
the same was circulated vide Board's Memo No. Ch.2/
Pen/G-43(93) dated 6.8.1993.
c
2. After issue of above Board's circular following issues/
queries were raised by the different field officers/officials
effected/Workers Unions. The issues/queries were
considered by the Executive meeting held on 27.7.94 and
necessary clarifications have been approved as under:-
0
6

(a) The time limit of three That a period of three months
of three months ·fixed by from the date of issue pf the
the Board for submitting clarification may be allowed
the option expired on to exercise option for E
5.11.93. There is a availing the pensionary
demand for the extension benefits to those who could
of time time limit for not avail this opportunity
exercising the option. earlier.
F
(b) There is an ambiguity That the workcharged
as to whether such employees who were in
employees who after service of the Board as
regularization of their regular employee on 9.1.74
services continued to be (i.e. the deemed date of G
the member of EPF adoption of circular) or got
scheme are covered under regularization thereafter,
could exercise their option
' for availing the pensionary
f benefits by counting of their H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A the circurar or not.
work-charged service even if
they continued to be the
member of EPF after issue of
the Board's instructions dt.
6.8.93, if they exercise the
B option to join the pension
scheme.

(c) A point has been raised That the interest in such like
that what will be rate of cases would of option for
c interest payable by the be pensionary benefits to the
payable from the date date of actual refund of the
employees/ pensioners/ employer's/employeee's
family pensioners to refund contribution alongwith the
the amount of EPF and the interest thereon to the Board.
D period for which the interest The rate of interst would be the
is to be charged. same which is applicable for
GPF subscription.

(d) A question has been That the Board has adopted
raised as to whether the the Haryana Government
E total workcharged service Notification dated 4.2.92
is to be reckoned towards w.e.f. 9.1. 74 as provided
pensionary benefits in therein. Therefore, the total
terms of para 'g' of the workcharged service of all
Haryana Government those employees would be
F notification dt.4.2.92 from countable towards pensionary
9.1.74. benefits who were in service
of the Board as regular
employee on 9.1.74 or got
regularization thereafter.
G
(e) There is demand from That employer's/ employee's
the Workers Union that the contribution alongwith interest
recovery of EPF amount thereon may be refunded to
alongwith the interest the Board in suitable
H should be made in instalments at the employee's
I

I
DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. v. 719
BACHAN SINGH [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

within his remaming period of A
instalments instead of
lumpsum on the pattern of service, subject to maximum
option BBMB. of 24 monthly instalments. In
case of those, who have
already retired the
employee's contribution B
alongwith interest thereon will
be refunded to the Board in
lumpsum.

c
3. These instructions may please be got noted from all the
employees and acknowledge the receipt of the letter.

Sd/-Additional Secretary Haryana State Electricity Board
Panchkula" o
7. The only condition for opting the pensionary benefits
was that the concerned employee would refund the amount of
employer's share received by him/her under the EPF Scheme
along with interest accrued thereon.
E
8. It was pleaded by the respondent that he had no
knowledge about the aforesaid instructions issued by the
appellants nor were the same got noted from him and as such,
he could not exercise his option for grant of pensionary benefits
within the prescribed time-limit. F
9. The respondent submitted that immediately after
acquiring the knowledge of the circular he exercised his option
for being governed under the pension scheme on 20.12.1994.
The respondent submitted that he was ready to deposit the
requisite amount received by him under the EPF Scheme. The G
appellants did not give any response and after the retirement
of the respondent calculated his pension and other retiral
benefits with effect from the date of his regularization i.e. ·
14.10.1981. The respondent issued reminders dated 2:9.2002
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

.. ---
A and 16.4.2003, but did not receive any response from the
appellants. Ultimately, the respondent issued a legal notice to
the appellants on 10.11.2003 calling upon the appellants to
consider his pension case in the light of the instructions issued
in the circulars of the appellants dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994.
B Since no response was received by the respondent, therefore,
he was compelled to file a writ petition before the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. ~

10. The appellants' main plank of argument was that the "'
said circulars were issued twice inviting options from the
c desirous employees for being governed under the pension
scheme. Ever.i the said circulars were also put on the Notice
Board and copies thereof were endorsed to the Secretary,
Workers' Union, but the· respondent failed to exercise his option
within the time prescribed and, therefore, his case for counting
D work-charge services towards pensionary benefits has rightly
not been considered by the appellants.
~
.'
11. It was submitted by the respondent before the High
Court that he was always desirous and willing to opt for the
E pension scheme by counting the work-charge service 10 and
he was prepared to refund the amount of employer's share with
interest under the EPF Scheme. The respondent further
submitted that immediately after he learnt about the circulars,
he exercised his option for pension scheme and in fact he has
F
been consistently requesting the appellants to consider his case •
for grant of pension but the grievance of the respondent has
not been redressed. The respondent was compelled to :-
approach the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

12. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
G Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length,
came to the definite conclusion that the appellants had failed
to produce any record showing that the instructions dated
6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing from
-+
-
the respondent. The High Court further observed that in the
H absence of any such material, it can well be inferred that the
DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJU VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. v. 721
BACHAN SINGH [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
-.I
.,,
respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the A
appellants vide circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994. The
High Court also observed that it would be unreasonable to ~eny
pensionary benefits to the.respondent despite the said circulars
issued by the appellants'. The High Court allowed the writ
petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellants to B
permit the respondent to exercise his option in accordance with
the circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 within a period of
j
one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the
order and thereafter give him the consequential benefits subject
to his fulfilling the conditions of eligibility for being governed c
under the pension scheme. The appellants aggrieved by the
said judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court have
approached this court.

13. The appellants submitted that the respondent did not
D
- )
comply with tb.e instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 within
the prescribed period and as such was not entitled for benefits
in terms of these circulars.

14. The High Court in its impughed judgment had
.., ___

"Categorically observed that the appellants had failed to produce E
ahy record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and
9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing from the respondent.
The appellants had also failed to produce such material from
which it can be inferred that the respondent had any knowledge
.. about the options called by the appellants vide instructions F
dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994. The High Court also observed
that in this view of the matter it would be unreasonable to deny
pensionary benefits to the respondent and the similarly placed
respondents.

15. It may be pertinent to mention that the Full Bench of G
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v. State
.... ~
of Punjab AIR 1988 (Punjab) 265 (FB) after examining the
entire case observed that once the services of work-charged
employee are regularized, he will be deemed to be entitled to
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A the benefit under rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules
Vol.2. Rule 3.17 (ii) reads as under:-

"/f any employee was holding substantively a permanent
post on th.e date of his retirement, his· temporary or
officiating service under the State Government, followed
B
without interruption by confirmation in the same or
another post, shall count in full as qualifying services
except in respect of :-

(i) periods of temporary or officiating service in non-
c pensionable establishment;

(ii) perkids of services in work-charged establishment; and

(... ) "
Ill ... ; ........ ,. . . . . .

D 16. The court in the said judgment held that the period of
service spent by an employee on work charge basis prior to "'
his regularization, should be taken in1o consideration for
determining his qualifying service. This part is coritained in para
19 of the judgment and reads thus:-
E
"19 ... lt looks to be illogical that the period of service spent
by an employee in a work-charged establishment before
his regularisation has not been taken into consideration for
determining his qualifying service. The classification which
is sought to be made among Government servants who
F
eligible for pension and those who started work-charged
employees and their services regularised subsequently,
and the others is based on any intelligible criteria and,
before, is not sustainable at law. After the services of a.
work-charged employee have been regularised, he is a
G public servant like other servant. To deprive him of the
pension is not only unjust and inequitable is hit by the vice
of arbitrariness, and for se reasons the provisions of sub-
rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 of the Rules have to be struck down
being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
H
-·
DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. v. 723
BACHAN SINGH [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
, ... .. 17. Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High A
Court in Kesar Chand's case (supra) was carried before this
court by way of filing a special leave petition. This court
dismissed the said special leave petition.

18. This court has taken the view that pension is reward
B
for long service rendered by the employee and not a bounty.
The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Sen & Others v.
Union of India & Others reported as 2001 (8) SCC 71 held
that:-
JI

·"14 .... As observed in Nakara's case, pension is neither a c
bounty, not a matter of grace depending upon the sweet
'
~' will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It is a
payment for the past services rendered, It is a social
welfare measure rendering socio-economic to those who
in the day-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the D
employer on an assurance that in their old age they would
) not be left in lurch ... "

19, The appellants had issued circulars dated 6.8.1993
and 9,8.1994 for giving pensionary benefits to the respondent
E
and similarly placed employees .
.
.,
"=!> 20. This court time and again had ob.served that the
principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 of the
" Constitution is that all persons similarly placed shall be treated
alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal F
~

laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation without
any discrimination.

21, In E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Na du & Anr. ( 1974)
4 sec 3, this court observed as under:- G
"From a positivistic point of view. equality is antithetic to
.. arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn
enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while
the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch,
Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A both according to political logic and Constitutional law and • r'
is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any
matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of
Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in
State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment."
B
22. In Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr (1978)
1 sec 248, this court observed as under:-

"Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and ,.
dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional
c arid doctrinaire limits .......... Article 14 strikes at
arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and •'
i
equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, '
which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential
element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article
D 14 like a brooding omnipresence."

23. In D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC ~

305, this court observed as under:-

'The thrust of Article 14 is that the citizen is entitled to
E equality before law and equal protection of laws. In the very
nature of things the society being composed of unequals
a welfare state will have to strive by both executive and

F
legislative action to help the less fortunate in the society
to ameliorate their condition so that the social and
economic inequality in the society may be bridged. This
would necessitate a legislation applicable to a group of
citizens otherwise unequal and amelioration of whose lot
"I '
is the object of state affirmative action. In the absence of
doctrine of classification such legislation is likely to flounder
G on the bed rock of equality enshrined in Article 14. The
court realistically appraising the social stratification and
economic inequality and keeping in view the guidelines on ...
which the State action must move as constitutionally laid '
down in part IV of the Constitution, evolved the doctrine of
H classification. The doctrine was evolved to sustain a
DAKSHINI HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM & ORS. v. 725
BACHAN SINGH [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
'JI legislation or State action designed to help weaker A
· ~ections of the society or some such segments of the
.society in need of succor. Legislative and executive action
may accordingly be sustained if it satisfies the twin tests
of reasonable classification and the rational principle
correlated to the object sought to be achieved. The State; B
therefore, would have to affirmatively satisfy the Court that·
the twin tests have been satisfied. It can only be satisfied
if the State establishes not only the rational principle on
which classification is founded but correlate if to the objects
sought to be achieved." c

-
24. In Ajay Hasia & Others .v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
& Others (1981) 1 SCC 722 this court observed as under:-

"That is must, therefore, now be taken to be well settled
that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because any D
action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation
)
of equality. The court made it explicit that where an act is
arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according
to political logic and constitutional law, and is, therefore,

-.
,.
'·
violative of Article 14."

25. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India & Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489 again this court
observed that a discriminatory action of the Government is liable
E

to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government
F
" that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some
valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable
or discriminatory.

26. In view of the law as has been articulated in a large
number of cases where this court has observed that any G
discriminatory action on the part of the Government would be
,, .. liable to be struck down. Hence, in this case, it would be totally
unreasonable and irrational to deny the respondent the
pensionary benefits under the scheme particularly when the
appellants have failed to produce any record showing that the H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.

A instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got
noted in writing by the respondent. In the absence of any such
material it can well be inferred that the respondent had no
knowledge about the options called by the appellants.

27. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the
8
Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is
indeed a rational, just and fair view and no interference is called
for.

28. These appeals are devoid of any merit and are
C accordingly dismissed leaving the patties to bear their own
costs.

D.G. Appeals dismissed. -