Holding

Rule 268‑H is constitutionally valid; the State may introduce different retiral benefit schemes based on a reasonable cut‑off date and it does not infringe Article 14.

Summary

The Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 were amended in 1964 to introduce a liberalised family pension scheme (Rule 268‑H) that could be elected only by government servants who were in service on 29 February 1964 or who joined thereafter. The Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti, an association of retired employees, challenged the cut‑off date as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, contending that it discriminated against servants who retired before that date and conflicted with the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India. The State of Rajasthan appealed the High Court’s decision striking down the provision, arguing that the date was a reasonable classification and that the rule was a permissible new retiral benefit scheme, not merely a revision of an existing one. The Supreme Court examined the precedents, especially Krishena Kumar and Indian Ex‑Servicemen League, and held that the government may prescribe different pension schemes based on a rational cut‑off date without violating Article 14. The Court found that the cut‑off date was not arbitrary, was based on a legitimate policy objective, and that extending the liberalised benefits to earlier retirees is a matter of executive policy, not judicial review. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Rajasthan High Court judgment, and upheld the validity of Rule 268‑H.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 268‑H’s cut‑off date of 29 February 1964 violates Article 14 of the Constitution
Whether the provision conflicts with the doctrine laid down in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
Whether the classification based on the cut‑off date is arbitrary, capricious or lacks a rational basis
Whether the provision is severable from the rest of Rule 268‑H
Whether the policy decision to limit the liberalised pension to a specific class is justiciable

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14
Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951s. Rule 261, s. Rule 262, s. Rule 268-H

Subjects

Article 14family pensionRajasthan Service Rulesdiscriminationpublic policyjudicial reviewNakara caseretirement benefitsdate of serviceseverability

Judgment

A STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
SEVANIVATRA KARAM CHARI HITKARI SAMIT!

JANUARY 3, 1995

B [P.B. SWANT AND G.N. RAY, JJ.)

Constitution of India-:-Artilce 14-Service Law-Rajasthan Service
Rules 1951-Rules 261 and 268-H, Chapters XXIII and XX/II-A-Family
pension-Cut off date-Rules providing for f amity pension for dependants of
C government servants-Liberalised optional scheme introduced by amendment
in 1964-0ption available to government servants who were in service on, or
would enter after, 29 Febmary, 1964-Liberalised scheme extended to all de-
pendents from April 1, 1988-Whether cut off date, which restricted the
categories of pensioners till April 1, 1988, discriminatory and violative of
D Article 14-Whether such mle conflicts with the principle in Nakara-Held, it
is permissible to introduce different retiral benefit schemes on the basis of
date of retirement-The mle is not violative ofArticle 14-A new retiral benefit,
where the State has prescribed a date in a reasonable manner, would not be
contrary to Nakara-However, State Government asked to sympathetically
consider antedating the benefits under the mle.
E
Judicial Review-Justiciability of public policy-Wisdom of policy
decision of government not justiciable unless it is wholly capricious, arbitrary
and whimsical or it offends any statutory provisions or the provisions of the
Constitution-Constitution of India, Article 14-Rajasthan Service Rules,
1951, Rule 268-H.
F
The Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 provided for grant of family
pension to the family of an officer who dies, whether he is still in service
or has retired, where he has completed the qualifying period of service.

On March 1, 1964, the rules were amended and a new liberalised
G
family pension scheme was introduced. The government servants were
given the option to choose between the old and the new scheme. This was
applicable to government servants who were in service on, or would enter
after, February 29, 1964.

H In 1965 and 1978, the benefits under the old scheme were enlarged,
8
STATE OF RAJ. v. S.K. HITKARI SAMITI 9

and on April 1, 1988, the scheme introduced in 1964 was extended to A
widows of government servants even where they retired or died before
March 1, 1964 as also to those who had opted for the old scheme.

Subsequently, the respondent, an unregistered association of retired
employees of the Government of Rajasthan, moved the High Court in a
writ petition contending, inter alia, that the cut of date of February 29, 1964 B
was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; that it
was in conflict with the decision in Nakara v. Union of India, AIR (1983)
SC 130; and that the impugned expression prescribing the cut off date in
Rule 268-H being severable, it should be struck down. The High Court
upheld the challenge. c
Before this Court it was contended for the appellant-State that
Nakara does not apply where the cut off date relates to a new retiral benefit,
as in this case. For the respondent it was urged that the government
servant who was in service on February 29, 1964 and who retired or died
-" before that date constituted the same class and that the cut off date was D
discriminatory.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. Rule 268-H of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is not E
violative of the Constitution. It is permissible to introduce different retiral
benefit schemes for government servants on the basis of the on the date of
retirement. Government servants can be governed by different sets of
retiral benefit rules with reference to their holding of office from a cut off
date. [21-C-B]
F
2.1. As indicated in Krishena Kumar, Nakara was not concerned with
a new scheme, but only the revision of an existing scheme; it was not a new
retiral benefit but upward revision of an existing benefit. In Krishena
Kumar's case a Constitution Bench upheld different sets of retiral benefits
being date applicable to employees retiring prior to a specified date and G
those retiring thereafter. The Court in that case indicated that any argu-
J./ ment to the contrary would mean that the government can never change
the condition of service relating to retir~I benefits with effect from a
particular date. [20-B-D]

D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR (1983) SC 130, explained and H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A distinguished.
Klishena Kumar v. Union of India, [1990] 4 SCC 207, applied.

Indian Ex-Se1vice League v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1182 and
State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, AIR (1991) SC 1743,
B referred to.

2. The cut off date mentioned in Rule 268-H was not a mere ipse dixit
of the State government, nor was it introduced in arbitrary and capricious
manner, taking it out of a hat, without any basis whatsoever. The govern-
C ment had taken into consideration the need for a liberalised pension
scheme for those government servants who were. in service on February 29,
1964 and who would be retiring thereafter and the new liberalised pension
scheme was introduced with effect from March 1, 1964. [20-F, 21-B]

3. Whether the liberalised benefit should also have been accorded to
D the government servants retiring prior to February 29, 1964 is a matter
policy for the executive, and must be left to the consideration of the State
government. The wisdom in a policy decision of the government, as such
is not justiciable unless such policy decision is wholly capricious, arbitrary
and whimsical thereby offending the Rule of Law as enshrined in Article
E 14 of the Constitution or it offends any provisions of the Constitution or
a statute. Save as otherwise, the court need not embark on the uncharted
ocean of public policy. [20-G-H, 21-A]

4. In view of inflation and escalating cost of living, the dependent
family members of government servants retiring before February 29, 1964
F must have been suffering financial hardship. It may be reasonably as-
sumed that the number of such pensioners must not be high, because of
long lapse of time. They deserve sympathetic consideration. It is hoped
that the State government will review the question of antedating the
benefits under Rule 268-H after taking into consideration all relevant
G factors. [21-F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 29 of "'-
1995.

From Judgment and Order dated 21.12.89 of the Rajasthan High
H Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 3051 of 1988.

T
STATE OF RAJ. v. S.K HITKARI SAMITl{G.N. RAY,J.] 11

Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. A
Manu Mridul and Surya Kant for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.N. RAY, J. Special leave granted. B
In this appeal a Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court
December 21, 1989 striking down the date i.e.' February 29, 1964 mentioned
in Rule 268-H of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as being violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, is under challenge. The respondent,
Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Sarniti, Jodhpur, an unregistered associa- c
tion of retired employees of the Government of Rajasthan, moved a Writ
Petition in the Rajasthan High Court inter alia contending that the expres-
sion "in service on 29.2.1964 who is" as used in Rule 268-H of the Rajasthan
Service Rules was discriminatory and violative of Article, 14 of the Con-
stitution. It was also contended that such Rule was also in conflict with the D
principle laid down in the decision of this Court rendered in D.S. Nakara
v. Union of India, AIR (1983) SC 130. It was also contended that the said
expression being severable from the other part of Rule 268-H, the same
should be struck down so that the validity of Rule 268-H without the
aforesaid expression is not affected.
E
By the impugned judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has held that
under Rule 268-H, the benefit of pension has been given only to the
government servants who are in service on 29.2.1964 but such benefit under
Rule 268-H was not extended to the government servants who had retired
prior ~o that date. The Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no
reasorlable classification in excluding government servants who were not in F
service on 29.2.1964 and limiting the benefit of liberalised Family Pension
Scheme under Rule 268-H only to such government servants who were in
service on 29.2.1964. The High Court has also held that such classification
without any reasonable basis for discrimination cannot be sustained in
view of the decision of this Court rendered in D.S. Nakara's case.

Rule 288-H of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 the validity of which
was the subject matter of challenge before the Rajasthan High Court is to
the following effect : -

"268-H Options to elect beili,~fits under this Chapter a Government H
,,
I
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A Servant in service on 29th Feburary, 1964 who is governed by the
family pension rules contained in Chapter XXIII of these Rules
shall have option to elect benefits under this Chapter in substitu-
tion of the existing family pension benefits as admissible under
Chapter XXIII or retain their existing benefits. The option shall
be exercised within a period of six months from the date of
B
publication of the Rajasthan Service (Amendment) Rules, 1964, in
the Official Gazette in the Form given hereunder. An option once
exercise shall be final. Persons who fail to exercise option will be
deemed to have elected the benefits under this Chapter.

c (2) The option under sub-rule (1) shall be communicated by the
Officer concerned to the Head of Office, if he is a non-Gazetted'
Officer and to the Accountant General, Rajasthan, Jaipur, if he is
a Gazetted Officer. The option when received from a non-
Gazetted Officer shall be counter-signed by the Head of the Office
and pasted in the Service book of the Officer concerned."
D
It appears that after the formation of the State of Rajastnan, Rajas-
than State Services came into force w.e.f. April 1, 1951. Chapter XXIII of
the said Rules provides for grant of family pension in accordance with the
provisions contained in Rules 261 to 268. Rules 261 provides :
E
"A family pension not exceeding the amount specified in Rule 262
may be granted to the family of an officer who dies. Whether still
in service or after retirement after completion of not less than 20
years qualifying service for a period of ten years.

F Provided that the period of payment of family pension will in
no case extend beyond a period of five years from the date on
which the deceased officer retired or on which he would have
retired on a superannuation pension in the normal course, accord-
ing as the death takes place after retirement or while the officer
is in service."
G
Thereafter, a Chapter being XXIII-A containing Rules 268-A to
268-H relating to the New family Pension Scheme came into force w.e.f.
Marchi, 1964 by insertion ofthe said Chapter XXIIl-A vide F.D. Notifica-
tion No. 1(12) FDE-R/64 dated September 25, 1964. The said new Family
H Pension Rules were made applicable to all government servants on pen-
STATE OF RAJ. v. S.K. HITKARI SAMITI [G.N. RAY, J.] 13

sionable establishments whether temporary or permanent who were in A
service on 29.2.1964 or who would enter service on or after that date but
such family pension shall not apply to :

(a) persons who retired before March 1, 1964 but may be re-
employed on that date or thereafter
B
(b) persons paid from contingencies

(c) work-charged staff

(d) casual labour
c
(e) Contract Officers

The new Rule 268-H gave option to elect benefits under Chapter
XXIIl-A to those government servants who were in service on 29.2.1964
and who were governed by the Family Pension Rules contained in Chapter
XXIII of Rajasthan Service Rules, in substitution of the existing family D
pension benefits as admissible under Chapter XXIII, or to retain their
existing benefits. On January 4, 1965, the State of Rajasthan again
liberalised the existing provision in regard to the family pension drawn by
the widows or minor childern of the employees under the Family Pension
Rules contained in Chapter XXIII who were actually in receipt of family E
pension on 29.2.1964, even though such pension would have been stopped
on expiry-of five years since the death of the government servant. The State
Government extended the period of eligibility of such family pension upto
the death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier, in the case of widows and
the date of attaining majority in the case of children and until marriage,
if earlier, in case of daughters. F
The State of Rajasthan further liberalised the existing provisions
contained in Chapter XXIII by providing relief to the widows of govern-
ment servants/pensioners who expired before March 1, 1964 and ceased to
draw their family .pension in terms of the Chapter XXIII of Rajasthan G
Service Rules. For such pensioners, the State Government allowed family
pension w.e.f. March 1, 1978.

On April 1, 1988, the State Government extended the benefits of the
provisions of new Family Pension Rules, 1964 as contained in Chapter
XXIII-A of the Rajasthan SerVice Rules w.e.f. April, 1, 1988 to the widows H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A of government servants of pensionable establishments who retired or died
before March 1, 1964 or who opted for the family pension benefits as
admissible under Chapter XXIII of Rajasthan Service Rules.

The said Sevenivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti challenged the vires
of Rule 268-H ,in Chapter XXIIl-A of Rajasthan Service Rules by contend-
B ing that the said Rule was violative of Article 14 being discriminatory
between two sets of government employees entitled to get family pension
only on the basis of such government servant's remaining in service on
29.2.1964 and thereafter . In the case of the government servant who was
not in service on 29.2.1964, the benefit of liberalised pension as contained
c in Rule 268-H in Chapter XXIII-A was not made available initially but
such government servant or his dependent family members were entitled
to draw family pension only under the old Family Pension Scheme under
Chapter XXIII.

D At the hearing of this appeal, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned coun- ...
sel for the appellant, has contended that Rule 268-H under Chapter
XXIII-A merely provides for option to elect benefits under this Chapter
i.e. Chapter XXIII-A "to the government servants in service on 29.2.1964"
in substitution of the existing family pension benefits as admissible under
Chapter XXIII or retain their existing benefits.
E
Mr. Gupta has submitted that Rule 268-H although introduced in
1964 was never challenged as being unconstitutional until 1988 by moving
the aforesaid Writ Petition. He has submitted that the Government ser-
vants and/or their family members continued to take benefits of the family ';i..

p pension under Chpater XXIII even when there was liberalisation of the
existing provisions contained in Chapter XXIII vide Memorandum dated
January 4, 1965 and no grievance was made on the score of alleged
discrimination for introducing the benefits of Rule 268-H under Chapter
XXIII-A. Similarly no grievance was also made regarding Rule 268-H
when there was further liberalisation under the provisions contained in
G Chapter XXIII as introduced in 1978. There was also no grievance regard-
ing Rule 268-H when by order dated December 31, 1982, the benefit of
ex-gratia pension to families of those government servants who retired
before March 1, 1964 and whose family members did not get any family
pension under the rules in force i.e. the provisions of Chapter XXIII, was
H given.
STATE OF RAJ. v. S.K. HITKARI SAMIT! [G.N. RAY, J.] 15

Mr. Gupta has submitted that it is really unfortunate and also surpris- A
ing that when the Government of Rajasthan decided to give further benefit
to the families of the government servants who had retired or died before
March 1, 1964 and covered by the provisions contained in Chapter XXIII
of the Rajasthan Service Rules by extending the benefit of new Family
Pension Rules contained in Chapter XXIII-A w.e.f. April 1, 1988 vide
order dated July 18, 1988, that the said Writ Petition was filed by the
B
respondent making a belated grievance regarding Rules 268-H.

Mr. Gupta has contended that the Writ Petition was filed by D.S.
Nakara and others challenging the validity of the Office Memorandum No.
F. 19(3)-EV-79 dated May 25, 1977 issued by the Government of India. C
Ministry of Finance whereby the formula of computation of pension was
liberalised and it was made applicable only to those government servants
who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retired from service on or after
that date. By the said government order, a slab system for computation of
pension was introduced. Such liberalised formula was made applicable to D
the government employees governed by the 1972 rules retiring on or after
the specified date.

Referring to the decision rendered by this Court in D.S. Nakara's
case (supra), Mr. Gupta has contended that the questions formulated by
this Court in the said case were to the following effect : - E

"(i) Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring
pension under Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, form a class
as a whole?

(ii) Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility F
when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in
and made effective from a specified date?

(iii) Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the date
of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension G
attract Article 14 of the Constitution and the element of dis-
crimination is liable to be declared unconstitutional as being viola-
.tive of Article 14.

It has been held by this Court in the decision in D.S. Nakara's case
~: H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A (a) that pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring
pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 from
one Class.

(b) Date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would
be operative from the date mentioned in the Scheme and would
B bring under its umbrella all retiring pensioners and those who
retired subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired
prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed afresh
and would be payable in future commencing from the specified
date. No arrears would be payable. If the date is wholly remove,
c revised pensions will have to be paid from actual date of retirement
of each pensioner. That is impermissible.

(c) that the words being in service on the specified date and retiring
subsequent to that date violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional
and as such should be struck down.
D
Mr. Gupta has further submitted that in the said decision it has been
specifically held by this Court that "unquestionably pension is linked to
length of service and the last pay drawn but the last pay does not imply the
pay on the last day of retirement but average emoluments as defined in the
E Scheme." It has also been held in the said decision that :

"only the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the
formula enacted in the liberalised pension scheme and effective
from the date the revised Scheme comes into force and beware that
it is not a new Scheme. It is only a revision of existing Scheme. It is
F not a new retiral benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit.
If it was a wholly new concep~ a new retiral benefi~ one could have
appreciated an argument that those who had already retired could
not expect it."

(Emphasis supplied)
G
Mr. Gupta has contended that the members of the respondent-
Association were governed by the provisions of rules contained in Chapter
XXIII of Rajasthan Service Rules as amended from time to time. The new
Family Pension Rules as contained in Chapter XXIII-A have been intro-
H duced for the benefit of government servants in service on a particular date
STATE OF RAJ. v. S.K. HITKARI SAMIT! [G.N. RAY, J.] 17

and retiring on or after that date. Such benefit under Chapter XXIIl-A A
was not introduced in substitution of the existing provision of family
pension rules as on March 1, 1964. Hence, the decision rendered in D.S.
Nakara's case is not applicable in the case of the members of the respon-
dent Samiti. Mr. Gupta has submitted that unfortunately the Rajasthan
High Court has failed to appreciate the basic distinctive feature, namely,
the members of the said Samiti were governed by the existing pension rules
B
under Chapter X:XIII, but the government servants who were in service on
29.2.1964 were entitled to be governed by a new Family Pension Rules as
contained in Chapter XXIIl-A if they had elected for the new Scheme.
Mr. Gupta has further submitted that after the impugned decision was
given by the Rajasthan High Court, there had been occasions for this Court c
to consider the import of the decision rendered in D.S. Nakara's case. Mr.
Gupta has referred to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
Krishena Kumar etc. v. Union of India and others, [1990) 4 SCC 207. In this
case, this Court has pointed out that in the decision in D.S. Nakara's case,
this Court has considered a case where an artificial date was specified D
classifying the retirees governed by the same rules and similarly situated
into two different classes, depriving one of such class of the benefit of
liberalised pension rules. It was found in that case that the specification of
the date for which liberalised pension rules were to come into force was
arbitrary and as such the same was struck down as offending Article 14
of the Constitution. In Krishena Kumar's case, this Court pointed out that E
the employees retiring prior to April 1, .1977 and those retiring thereafter
were governed by different sets of rules. Accordingly, different pension
schemes were permissible for the said two classes of governed servants.

Mr. Gupta has also referred to another Constitution Bench decision F
of this Court in Indian Ex-Services League and others v. Union of India,
AIR (1991) SC 1182. In the said case, retirees of Armed Force prior to
April 1, 1979 claimed same benefit by contending that there should be one
pension for one rank and they relied on the decision rendered in Nakara's
case. This Court considered the import of the decision rendered in
Nakara's case and pointed out that the decision in D.S. Nakara's case had G
a limited application and there was no scope for enlarging the ambit of the
said decision to cover all claims made by the pension retirees or a demand
for an identical claim of pension to any retiree from the same rank
irrespective of the date of retirement. Mr. Gupta has also relied on a
decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj, H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A AIR (1991) SC 1743. In the said case, this Court conside~ed whether
contributory provident fund retirees and the employees opting for pension
scheme form one class or they can be treated differently. This Court has
held in the said decision that the decision in Nakara's case is not applicable
because contributory provident fund retirees and the employees opting for
pension scheme belong to different classes and contributory provident fund
B retirees cannot as of right switch over to the pension scheme and get
benefit of the pension scheme retirees. In that case, however, the proposal
of the government to grant ex-gratia payment of Rs. 110 per month to the
widows covered by the contributory provident fund scheme on the sugges-
tion of this Court was appreciated and accepted.
c
Mr. Gupta has, therefore, submitted that the ratio of the decision in
Nakara's case has been noticed by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and
it has been clearly indicated that the scope and ambit of the decision in
Nakara's case should not be extended and the said decision does not cover
D the case of the government employees who are governed by two different
sets of retiral benefit rules. Mr. Gupta has submitted that in the instant
case, the government servants who were in service on or after 29.2.1964 .,
were governed by a new retiral benefit scheme under Chapter XXIIl-A
whereas the retirees prior to 29.2.1964 were governed by a different retiral
benefit scheme under Chapter XXIII. It was quite open to the government
E to introduce a new retiral benefit scheme for the government servants who
were in service on or after 29.2.1964. Accordingly, Rule 268-H was con-
stitutionally valid and was not liable to be struck down. He has submitted
that the appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment should be
set aside.
F
Mr. Surya Kant, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
that after the Notification dated April 1, 1988 the benefit under Chapter
XXIII-A has also been made applicable to the Government servants or the
family members who had retired prior to 29.2.1964. But upto April 1, 1988,
the government servants or their family members were deprived of the
G liberalised pension scheme under Chapter XXIIl-A because of the words
appearing in Rule 268-H to the following effect : 'in service on 29tl!
February, 1964 who is'.

Mr. Surya Kant has contended that the government servant who was
H in servir,e on 29.2.1964 and the government servant who retired or died
STATE OF RAJ. v. S.K. HITKARI SAMITI [G.N. RAY, J.) 19

prior to 29.2.1964 constitute the same class because both were government A
servants and both were governed by the family pension rules contained in
-...,.. Chapter XXIII. Mr. Surya Kant has contended that the whole purpose of
making Chapter XXIII-A of Rajasthan Service Rules was that the legisla-
ture felt that family of a government servant who had given best part of his
life in the service of the State should not be left destitute more so because
the widow of the Government servant will have hardly any thing to fall back
B
upon. It was felt that social justice will not be advanced by providing a
family pension as stipulated in Chpater XXIII and the families of the
deceased government servants will need benign protection of the State
under the liberalised pension rules. Viewed from this angle, there will be
hardly any justification to limit the benefit under Chapter XXIII-A only to c
government servants who were in service on 29.2.1964. Mr. Surya Kant has
submitted that except that the date 29.2.1964 coincides with the date on
which the rule 268-H was made, there is no discernible factor in fixing
29.2.1964 as the cut off date on which the government servant should be in
service so as to be entitled to get the benefit of liberalised pension under
D

. i
Chapter XXIII-A. He has submitted that the discrimination made between
these two classes of government servants must be held as violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as the government servants
who were in service on 29.2.1964 and those who ceased to be in service
before that date basically belong to the same class of persons, namely, the
class of persons who served government of Rajasthan for a specified period E
for becoming eligible to pension. Both the said groups, therefore, form one
class and the artificial distinction sought to be made under Rule 268-H
has no intelligible criterion having nexus to the object for which such
distinction was sought to be made. He has, therefore, submitted that in the
facts of the case, the impugned decision of the Rajasthan High Court
F
should be held to be correct and the appeal should be dismissed .

. After considering the respective contentions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, it appears to us that after the impugned decision
was made by the Rajasthan High Court, this Court has considered the
import of the decision rendered in D.S. Nakara's case. This court has G
noticed the ratio in D.S. Nakara's case as indicated in Krishena Kumar's
case (supra) and in Indian Ex-Services League's case (supra) and also in
~

- Rajasthan Pensioners Samaj's case (supra), it has been clearly indicated by
this Court that the government servants can be governed by different sets
of ~tiral benefit rules with a reference to their holding of office from a cut H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.

A off date. In /(Jishena Kumar's case, it has been indicated that in D.S.
Nakara's case this Court considered a case where an mtificial date was
specified classifying the retirees into two different classes even though they
were govemed by the same 1Ules and were similarly situated. Such classifica-
tion where both the groups were governed by the same rules amounted to
deprivation of one group of the benefit of liberalisation of pension rules.
B It was only in that situation it was held in D.S. Nakara's case that specifica-
tion of the date from which the liberalisation pension rules were to come
into force was arbitrary. This Courts, in D.S. Nakara's case, clearly indi-
cated that it was not a new scheme but only a revision of the existing
scheme and it was not a new retiral benefit but it was a case of upward
c revision of existing benefit. In D.S. Nakara's case, it was pointed out that
if it was wholly a new concept, a new retiral benefit, one could have
appreciated an argument that those who had already retired could not
expect it. The Constitution Bench in Krishena Kumar's case has upheld
different sets of retiral benefits being made applicable to the employees
D retiring prior to April 1, 1977 and retiring thereafter. It has been indicated -
by the Constitution Bench in Krishena Kumar's case that any argument to
the contrary would mean that the government can never change the
condition of service relating to retiral benefits w.e.f. a particular date. It
has, however, been pointed out that the State cannot back a date out of its
hat but it has to prescribe a date in a reasonable manner having regard to
E the relevant fact& and circumstances.

In the instant case, the date 29.2.1964 in Rule 268-H under Chapter
XXIII-A has not been taken out of hat. The government had taken into
consideration the need for a liberalised pension scheme for those govern-
ment servants who were in service on 29.2.1964 and who would be retiring
F
thereafter and the new liberalised pension scheme under Chapter XXIIl-A
was introduced with effect from March, 1964.

It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the
liberalised benefit for pension should have also been accorded to the
G government servants retiring prior to 29.2.1964 because such exercise being
a matter of policy decision for the executive, must be left to the considera-
tion of the State Government. The wisdom in a policy decision of the
Government, as such, is not justiceable unless such policy decision is wholly
capricious, arbitrary and whimsical thereby offending the Rule of Law as
H enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy decision offends
STATE OF RAJ. v. S.K. HITKARI SAMITI [G.N. RAY, J.] 21

any statutory provisions or the provisions of the Constitution. Save as A
aforesaid, the Court need not embark on unchartered ocean of public
policy.

It does not appear to us that the cut off date mentioned in Rule
268-H was only an ipsi dixit of the State Government and introduced in an
arbitrary and capricious manner taking out of hat without any basis what- B
soever. It is perffiissible to introduce different retiral benefit schemes for
government servants on the basis of the date of retirement as indicated in
the decisions of this Court in Krishena Kumar's case. Indian Ex-Services
League's case and Rajasthan Pensioners Samaj's case. Rule 268-H cannot,
therefore, be held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as indicated C
in the impugned decision of Rajasthan High Court. We, therefore, allow
this appeal and set aside the impugned decision rendered by the Rajasthan
High Court.

Before we conclude, we may indicate that the State Government of D
Rajasthan has given the benefit of the liberalised pension scheme under
Rule 268-H from 1988 to the pensioners even if the concerned government
servant had retired prior to 29.2.1964 because the government must have
felt that such pensioners deserve the benefit of liberalised pension scheme.
The learned counsel for the parties have not been able to enlighten us
about the number of persons who would be benefitted if the liberalised E
pension scheme under Rule 268-H is made effective even from a date prior
to 1988 and made available to those government servants including their
family members who had retired prior to 29.2.1964. We may reasonably
assume that the number of such pensioners must not be high because of
long lapse of time. In view of inflation and escalating cost of living, it does
not require any special imagination to hold that government servants F
re~iring before 29.2.1964, particularly the widows and dependent family
members of such retirees must have been suffering from financial hardship
and they deserve sympathetic consideration in the matter of granting
liberalised retiral benefits including pensionarybenefits. We hope and trust
that the State Government being fully alive to the hard· realities of the G
conditions of retirees prior to 29.2.1964 will review the question of antedat-
ing the benefits under Rule 268-H to such retirees after taking into con-
sideration all relevant factors. With this observation, the appeal is allowed
without any order as to costs.

U.R. Appeal allowed.