Supreme Court of India
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.versusN. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 409
- Decided
- 26 March 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
Holding
Fixing a cut‑off date for pension benefits is a matter of executive discretion and is not violative of Article 14 unless it is manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory.
Summary
The respondents, lecturers in private aided colleges, challenged a government order fixing 1 November 1992 as the cut‑off date for pension entitlement after the Education Code amendment reduced their retirement age from 60 to 58 years. The High Court held the cut‑off date arbitrary and discriminatory, directing pension from the date of retirement. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the executive’s fixation of a cut‑off date violates Article 14. Relying on precedents, the Court held that fixing such dates is within the executive’s domain and may be interfered with only if it is manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory. Since no such blatant arbitrariness was shown, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeals were allowed, restoring the government’s cut‑off date.
Issues considered
- Whether the cut‑off date of 1 November 1992 for pension benefits to lecturers in private aided colleges is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the courts can interfere with the executive’s discretion in fixing a cut‑off date for pension entitlement.
Subjects
Article 14PensionCut‑off dateJudicial restraintExecutive discretionPrivate aided collegeLecturersService lawDiscrimination
Judgment
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 522
A GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. -~
v.
N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3939-3941 of 2002)
MARCH 26, 2008
B
(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.)
- ~
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article· 14 - Grant of pensionary benefits to lecturers in
c private aided College - Fixing of cut off date as 1.11.1992 -
High Court holding cut off date fixed, as arbitrary and
discriminatory- HELD: Fixing cut off dates is within the domain
of executive authority and Court should not normally interfere
with such order unless it appears to be blatantly discriminatory
D and arbitrary - Cut off date is fixed by executive authority
keeping in view economic conditions, financial constraints and
many other administrative and attendant circumstances - ·J
Even if no reason has been given as to why a particular cut off
date has been chosen, Court must still not declare that date
E to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off
date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result
- Service Law - Grant of pensionary benefits - Cut off date -
Educational Institution - Pension to Lecturers - Cut off date.
State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (2005)
F 6 sec 754- relied on.
D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India 1983(1) SCC 305 J._
- referred to.
Judicial Restraint:
G
Cut off date - Fixed by Government for grant of pension
Pl
to Lecturers - HELD: Court must exercise judicial restraint
and must ordinarily leave it to executive authorities to fix cut
off date - Government must be left with some leeway and free
'
522
,
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. 523
N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS.
~-
play at the joints in this connection - Court must maintain A
iudicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or
executive domain.
State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368;
Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC
.... 212; Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank B
Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76;
· University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary &
Ors. 1996(10) SCC 536; Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf
Club & Anr. vs. Chander Hass & Anr. 2008(3) 3 JT 221 and in
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Smt. P Laxmi Devi c
•. 2008(2) 8 JT 639 - relied on .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL
No. 3939-3941 of 2002.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 2316/2000 of D
l the High of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.
Nos. 2089, 2461 and 2480/1990.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 3983 of 2004. E
D. Bharathi Reddy. for the Appellants.
P.S. Narasimha, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Abid Ali Beeran P.
and Neeru Vaid for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered F
... These appeals have been preferred by the State against
the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
By the impugned order, the High Court directed that the
respondents be paid the pensionary benefits from the respective G
date of their retirement under the provisions of Pension Rules
1980.
t We have heard the parties at length.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
H
524 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
. .,..
A The respondents were Lecturers in private aided college.
The age of superannuation of the respondents was 60 years.
By an amendment of the Education Code in 1993, the age of
superannuation of the respondents has been brought down to
58 years. In the said amendment it was also provided that the
B respondents shall be entitled to pension with effect from 1st
November 1992. .'
Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred writ petition
before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court,
after hearing the parties, was of the view that the cut off date 1I
c 11/1992 fixed by the Government was arbitrary and
discriminatory.
In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that
the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in
view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many
D
other administrative and other attending circumstances. This
Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the J
domain of the executive authority and the Court should not
normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive
authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it
E blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. (See State of Punjab &
Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 754).
No doubt in D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India 1983( 1)
SCC 305 this Court had struck down the cut off date in
F connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent
decisions this Court has considerably watered down th_!=l rigid
view taken in Nakara's Case (supra), as observed in para 29 of
the decision of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar
Nath Goyal & Ors. (supra).
G There may be various considerations in the mind of the
executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has
been fixed. These considerations can be financial,
administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise
judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive
H authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left
'
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. 525
N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS.
with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection. A
In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the
extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be
dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the
same in the counter affidavit filed by the Government, (unless it
is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical) vide State of Bihar 8
vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of Indian & Anr.
vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5),
Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees
Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76
c
(vide para 31), University Grants Commission vs.
Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows,
therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter
affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why
a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still
0
not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14
unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious
or outrageous result.
As has been held by this Court in Divisional Manager,
Aravali Goff Club & Anr. vs. Chander Hass & Anr. 2008(3) 3 E
JT 221 and in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Smt.
P Lax mi Devi 2008(2) 8 JT 639 the Court must maintain judicial
restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain.
For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order of the
High Court is set aside. The appeals are allowed. F
R.P. Appeals allowed.
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 14"Sign in to search