• Parity for introducing pension in state universities

If a state government has an established policy of treating all statutory/autonomous bodies at par for counting pensionable service, performed in different establishments of these bodies, can  the same government selectively introduce pension in one state university and leave out others?
Asked 9 months ago in Civil Law from New Delhi, Delhi
No, it can not.
Though the state is can differentiate as far applicability of its policies are concerned but it must be based on intelligible differentia.
In absence of that such biasness is arbitrary and unsustainable and hence can be set aside by invoking writ jurisdiction of court.
Devajyoti Barman
Advocate, Kolkata
8626 Answers
102 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

University Grant Commission in 1983 constituted 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 various recommendations. One of the recommendations related to extending pension-cum-gratuity scheme to the teachers of Universities and colleges. 

2) government cannot selectively introduce penion in one state university and leave out others 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
32554 Answers
1795 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

In D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India., Supreme court  stated:-
"42. If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the
pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class,
would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be
divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to
purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded
on some rational principle? The classification has to be based,
as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational
principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved.
We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension.
If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension
scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting
these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date
simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior to
that date. If the liberalization was considered necessary for
augmenting social security in old age to government servants
then those who retired earlier cannot be worse off than those
who retired later. Therefore, this division which classified
pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational
principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing
pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons
otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory. To
illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day prior and
another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in
the same pay bracket, the average emolument was the same and
both had put in equal number of years of service."
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
32554 Answers
1795 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

The state government cannot pass an order affecting other universities of the state while passing an order favoring or benefiting one particular university, this would be considered as illegal and a writ may be filed against such order. It shall be against the rules and provisions of the UGC.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
22741 Answers
221 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

The policy clearly equates all universities of the state for computing pension on the basis of length of service completed in different autonomous bodies of the state by the employees, but while introducing pension for the first time, this equating policy was ignored and disparity created. Which article of the constitution and or the Supreme Court judgment applies?

The apex Court relied upon the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 and held that it was not permissible to create a class within class and directed the Government to extend similar benefit to pre 1.1.1996 retirees on notional basis. 
The apex Court time and again considered the ratio of law held in the case of D.S. Nakara in various cases and the ratio laid down in the said case has been diluted. 
The act is:
 Constitution of  India, Art.  14-Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules,  1972 and Regulations governing pension for
Armed  Forces  Personnel-Liberalisation	 in  computation  of
pension effective  from specified date-Divides pensioners so
as to  confer benefit  on some	while denying  it to others-
Classification arbitrary, devoid of rational nexus to object
of liberalisation and violative of Art. 14
     Constitution   of	  India,   Art.	   14-Doctrine	  of
severability-Severance may have effect of enlarging scope of
     Rules  and	 Regulations  governing	 grant	of  pension-
Pension is  a right-Deferred  portion  of  compensation	 for
service rendered-Also a social-welfare measure.
 It was held in that case thus:
 HELD: Article  14 strikes	at  arbitrariness  in  State
action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is
attracted where	 equals are  treated differently without any
reasonable basis.  The principle underlying the guarantee is
that all  persons similarly  circumstanced shall  be treated
alike both  in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
Equal laws  would have	to be  applied to  all in  the	same
situation and  there should be no discrimination between one
person and  another if	as regards the subject-matter of the
legislation  their   position  is  substantially  the  same.
Article 14  forbids class legislation but permits reasonable
classification	for   the  purpose   of	  legislation.	 The
classification	must   be   founded   on   an	intelligible
differentia which  distinguishes persons  or things that are
grouped together  from those  that are left out of the group
and that  differentia must  have a  rational  nexus  to	 the
object sought  to be achieved by the statute in question. In
other words, there ought to be causal connection between the
basis of  classification and  the object of the statute. The
doctrine of  classification was evolved by the Court for the
purpose of sustaining a legislation or State action designed
to help	 weaker sections  of the  society.  Legislative	 and
executive action  may accordingly  be sustained by the court
if  the	  State	 satisfies  the	 twin  tests  of  reasonable
classification and  the rational principle correlated to the
object sought  to be  achieved. A  discriminatory action  is
liable to  be struck  down unless  it can  be shown  by	 the
Government that	 the departure	was not	 arbitrary  but	 was
based on  some valid  principle	 which	in  itself  was	 not
irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
22741 Answers
221 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a Lawyer