Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 321 OF 2015]

State of Rajasthan and Ors. ... Appellants

                               Versus

Mahendra Nath Sharma ...Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1124 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 342 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1126 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 461 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1127 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 72 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.         OF 2015   (@ SLP(C) NO. 649 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1129 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1008 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1131 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1155 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1159 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1220OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1134 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1327 OF 2015)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1135 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1411 OF 2015)

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The  respondents  were  working  on  different  posts  of

Lecturers, Librarians and PTIs, who retired prior to 1.1.2006.

Page 2

It is not in dispute that all of them were appointed in different

years from 1950 to 1976 and all of them retired between 1991

to 2004.  It is also not in dispute that all of them had been

granted  Lecturers  (Selection  Scale)  on  or  before  1.1.1986.

Thus, all of them had completed three years of service in the

said pay-scale prior to 1.1.2006. After the pay revision took

place,  on  the  basis  of  the  recommendation  of  the  4th Pay

Commission,  the respondents/ similarly situated employees

got the benefit  of  revision of the pay scale with effect from

1.1.1986  vide  notification  dated  3.6.1988.   As  per  the

Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales for Government

College Teachers) Rules, 1988, (for short, “the 1988 Rules”),

the schedule indicates the existing pay scale and the revised

UGC pay scale.   A  chart  in  that  regard would indicate  as

follows:  

“S.No. Name of posts Existing  Pay Scale

Revised U.G.C. Pay Scale

1 2 3 4 1. Principal  of  Post

Graduate College Rs.1500-2500 4300-50-5700-

200-7300 2. Principal  of  Degree

College/Vice Principal  of  Post Graduate  College/ Degree College  

Rs.1200-1900 3700-125-495 0-150-5700

3. Lecturer  (Ordinary Scale)

700-1600 2200-75-2800- 100-4000

2

Page 3

4. Lecturer  (Senior Scale)

- 3000-100-350 0-125-5000

5. Lecturer  (Selection Scale)

- 3700-125-495 0-150-5700”

In the present case, we are only concerned with serial

no. 3 to 5.  

2. From the aforesaid schedule, it is quite clear that in the

year  1986,  the  post  of  Lecturer  (Selection  Scale)  was

introduced for the purpose of revision of pay scale and the

respondents since then had been drawing the pay scale of the

post of Lecturer (Selection Scale).  

3. As the factual matrix would unfurl, the Government of

Rajasthan vide Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale for

Government  College  Teachers  including  Librarians,  PTIs)

Rules,  1999,  (for  short,  “the  1999  Rules”)  revised  the  pay

scales  of  Government  College  Teachers/Librarians  w.e.f.

1.1.1996.   The  Schedule  appended  to  the  said  Rule

mentioned  the  post  of  Lecturer  (Ordinary  Scale),  Lecturer

(Senior  Scale)  and  Lecturer  (Selection  Scale)  showing  the

existing revised pay scale as against the said post, as a result

of which the respondents who retired prior to the year 1996

or  for  that  matter  in  the  year  1999  were  granted  revised

3

Page 4

pension on the basis of the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996

meant for the grade of Lecturer (Selection Scale).   

4. In the year 2008, the Government of Rajasthan issued a

circular/memorandum  dated  12.09.2008,  which  envisaged

that the pension/family pension of all the pre 1.9.2006 State

pensioners/family  pensioners  be  revised  w.e.f.  1.9.2006  as

per  the  provisions made therein.   Paragraph 3 of  the  said

Circular/Memorandum provides the dictionary clause, which

reads as under:

“(a) ‘Existing  Pensioner’  or  ‘Existing  Family Pensioner’  means  a  pensioner  who  was drawing/entitled  to  pension/family pension as on 31.08.2006.

(b) ‘Existing  Pension’  means  the  basic pension/consolidated pension inclusive of commuted  portion,  if  any,  due  on 31.08.2006.

(c) ‘Existing Family Pension’ means the basic family  pension/consolidated  family pension drawn on 31.08.2006.

(d) ‘Existing  Dearness  Relief’  means  the dearness relief @ 24% on original pension of family pension plus dearness pension.

(e) ‘Bank’ means the branch of the Bank from which the pensioner is getting his pension Consolidation/Revision of Pension.”  

5. Paragraph 4 provides that the pension/family pension of

4

Page 5

existing  pre-1.9.2006  pensioners/family  pensioners  will  be

consolidated w.e.f. 1.9.2006 by adding together the following:-

“(i) The existing pension/family pension

(ii) Dearness  Pension  @  50%  of  original pension/family  pension/consolidated pension/consolidated  family  pension under FD order No. F.6(3) FO(Rule5)12004 dated 24.05.2004, where applicable.

(iii) Dearness  Relief  @  24%  of  original pension/family  pension/consolidated pension/consolidated family pension plus Dearness Pension.

(iv) Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension/family pension.

Where the existing pension in (i) above includes the effect  of  merger of  50% of  dearness relief w.e.f. 01.07.2004, the existing pension for the purpose  of  fitment  weightage  will  be recalculated  after  excluding  the  merged dearness relief of 50% from the pension.”

6. It has also been stipulated therein that the amount so

arrived  at  will  be  regarded  as  consolidated  pension/family

pension  with  effect  from  1.9.2006.   The  relevant  part  of

Paragraph  5  of  the  said  circular/  memorandum  reads  as

follows:

“The consolidated pension (treated as final ‘Basic Pension’)  as  on  01.09.2006  of  pre-01.09.2006 pensioner shall not be lower than 50% of sum of the minimum pay of the post in the running pay band plus grade pay introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2006

5

Page 6

corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale  of  the post from which pensioner had retired, subject to the  condition  that  the  existing  provisions  in  the rules  governing  qualifying  service  for  grant  of pension and minimum pension shall continue to be operative.”           

7. At  this  juncture,  it  is  apt  to  note  that  the  aforesaid

clause is central to the controversy calling for interpretation.

The learned Single Judge of  the High Court vide judgment

and order dated 20th September, 2011 considering many an

aspect had granted relief to the respondents herein.  The said

order  was  challenged  in  Intra-Court  appeal  before  the

Division Bench.  The Division Bench reproduced para 6.3.9 of

the UGC Regulations as relied by the State, which stipulates

as follows:-

“6.3.9  The incumbent teacher must be on the roll  and  active  service  of  the Universities/Colleges  on  the  date  of consideration  by  the  Selection  Committee  for Selection/CAS Promotion.”

On  behalf  of  the  respondents  therein,  reliance  was

placed on a communication dated 31.3.2010 issued by the

Pension  and  Pensioners  Family  Welfare  Department,

Government  of  Rajasthan,  Jaipur  as  well  as  the

communication  of  the  Government  of  India  (Ministry  of

Human  Resources  Development,  Department  of  High

6

Page 7

Education)  dated  15.12.2009  by  which  the  Central

Government had decided to extend the benefits of pay band of

Rs. 37400-67000 to those who had completed three years of

service in the pre-revised pay scale of 12000-420-18300 and

the  order  dated  15.12.2009  was  made  applicable  to  those

pensioners  who  were  drawing  pension/family  pension  on

1.1.2006  under  the  Central  Civil  Services  (Pension)  Rules,

1972.  Another communication dated 1.7.2010 issued by the

Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource

Development to the Secretary, UGC was also placed reliance

upon.  The Division Bench adverted to the submissions of the

learned  Advocate  General  for  the  State  which  was  mainly

focussed on the aspect that certain documents and guidelines

were  not  filed  before  the  learned  Single  Judge,  as  a

consequence  of  which  an  erroneous  decision  had  been

rendered.  On the basis of the said submissions, the Division

Bench passed the following order:-

“When  Schedule  is  part  of  the  Rules  and extension  of  the  pay  scale  of  37400-67000 depends  upon  the  aforesaid  aspects,  the question was required to be examined by the Single Bench whether in view of the provisions made  in  the  rules  and  the  guidelines particularly  contained  in  para  6.3.9,  the respondents  could  have  been  extended  the

7

Page 8

benefit.   The  decision  issued  by  the  Finance Department  was  also  not  placed  for consideration before the Single Bench.  Single Bench  has  not  taken  into  consideration  the guidelines which were required to be taken into consideration  before  reaching  any  decision. Similarly, the stand of the State Government is that  newly  upgraded  pay  scale  has  been introduced  for  the  first  time  on  1.1.2006, whether it would be applied to the persons who have  already  retired  on  the  date  it  has  been created  with  the  certain  riders.   This  aspect would  also  be  required  to  be  examined  that Finance  Department  has  not  accepted  the proposal  for  enhancement.   The  financial liability is to be borne by the State Government. It is also to be taken into consideration whether the  pay  scale  in  running  pay  band 37400-67000  and  grade  pay  9000/-  is admissible  to  Lecturers  who  have  completed three  years  in  selection  scale  on  or  after 01.01.2006 only.  The dispensation is allowed under CAS selection scale or ACP admissible to State Government Employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years service; it is not a regular line promotion or automatic.  In various other States also, similar revision of pension has not been allowed due to the financial condition.  All these  aspects  are  required  to  be  taken  into consideration.  When documents, final order of State  Government  and  guidelines  referred  in Schedule  were  not  placed  before  the  Single Bench,  obviously,  they  could  not  have  been taken into  consideration.   As  guidelines  were admittedly prevailing, same ought to have been brought to the notice of the Single Bench of the purpose of effective adjudication by the parties.

Consequently,  we  have  no  hesitation  in setting  aside  the  order  passed  by  the  Single Bench as material aspects/documents were not placed for consideration before it.  The decision

8

Page 9

of the Central Government was applicable to its own employees  governed  by  the  Central  Civil Services Rules, 1972.  It could not have been made  applicable  ipso  facto  to  the  State Government employees.  The decision taken by the Finance Department was unfortunately not brought to the notice of Single Bench which has now been submitted.  All these aspects are also required to be considered by the Single Judge.”

8. Being of this view, the Division Bench set aside the order

passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter

to the writ Court to decide the matter afresh after considering

the guidelines and various other aspects of the case.         

9. After the remit, the learned Single Judge adverted to the

rival  submissions,  considered  the  Regulations  of  2010,

paragraph  5  of  the  Memorandum  dated  12.9.2008,

Notification  dated  12.10.2009,  Letter  dated  15.12.2009

issued by the Government of India, Ministry of HRD wherein

it  was  clarified  that  pay  band of  Rs.37400-67000 is  to  be

given to all those who had already completed three years of

service  in  selection  grade  prior  to  1.1.2006  and,  more

specifically, the pensioners and on that analysis allowed the

writ petitions.

10. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Single

Judge, the State of Rajasthan and its functionaries preferred

9

Page 10

Intra-Court appeals before the Division Bench.  The Division

Bench noticed that the learned Single Judge has awarded the

benefit as per existing guidelines of UGC to the respondents

who had retired prior to 1.1.2006.  That apart, the Division

Bench took note of certain other factors, namely, that there

were three pay-scales applicable to the respondents, namely,

Rs.8000-275-13500,  Rs.12000-420-15300  and

Rs.12000-420-18300;  that  the  Sixth  Pay  Commission  had

recommended to revise these pay scales to Rs.15600-39100

with Academic Grade Pay (hereinafter referred to As ‘AGP’) of

Rs. 6,000/- to the first existing pay scale, Rs.7,000/- as AGP

as Senior Scale, to second existing pay scale, and Rs.8,000/-

as AGP as Selection Scale to the third pay scale; and that it

had  also  recommended  for  bifurcation  of  pay  scales  of

Lecturers (selection scale) into two, namely, Rs. 15600-39100

with AGP of  Rs.8000/- for  those lecturers (selection scale),

who have not completed 3 years of service in the existing pay

scale as on 01.01.2006 and the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000

with AGP of Rs.9000/- for all  those, who had completed 3

years service in the existing pay scale as on 01.01.2006 and

onwards, subject to the guidelines issued in this regard.

10

Page 11

11. After  so  stating,  the  Division  Bench  opined  that  the

respondents  were  entitled  as  per  paragraph  5  of  the

Memorandum dated 12.9.2008 for fixation of their pension at

the minimum of 50% in the running pay band plus grade pay

of the post introduced vide notification dated 12.10.2009.  It

took  note  of  the  fact  that  the  pension  was  revised  as  per

notification dated 12.10.2009 but out of the two pay bands of

Lecturers  (Selection  Scale),  the  lower  pay  band  of

Rs.15,600-39,100/- was taken into consideration for fixation

of  pension  on  the  ground  that  the  respondents  had  not

completed three years of service in the selection scale prior to

their  retirement.   The  Division  Bench  appreciated  the

reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the consolidated

pension as on 1.9.2006 should not be lower than 50% of the

minimum pay of the post in the running pay band plus grade

pay  introduced  w.e.f.  1.9.2006.   Elucidating  the  reasons

ascribed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge,  the  Division  Bench

stated that since the pay scales were revised with effect from

01.09.2006, it was clear that such revised pay scales were to

be taken note of in the revision of the pension; that the pay

scale  was  revised  pursuant  to  the  Notification  dated

11

Page 12

12.10.2009,  with  effect  from  01.01.2006  instead  of

01.09.2006; that it was clear that revision of pay scale would

be at the minimum of 50% of the sum of the pay in running

pay band plus grade pay so introduced from the year 2006;

that the University Grants Commission Regulations of 2010

notified on 30.06.2010,  with special  reference to para nos.

1.3, 6.3, 6.3.9, 6.4.0 to 6.4.8, were applicable to the Teachers,

who were in active service; and that these Regulations did not

have any retrospective effect.  Thereafter the appellate Bench

observed  that  notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the

Regulations  of  2010,  if  any  candidate  was  eligible  for

promotion  under  Career  Advancement  Scheme  (hereinafter

referred to as ‘CAS’) prior to 31.12.2008, the promotion under

CAS would be as per Regulations of 2000, as amended from

time to time, read with Notification and guidelines issued by

the  UGC from time  to  time.   It  further  observed  that  the

promotion in the selection scale could not be nullified, even if

it  was  given  prior  to  the  Notification  of  2000  and  if  any

Teacher/Librarian/PTI was given Selection Scale prior to the

enforcement of the Regulations of 2010, it was not necessary

for him to be considered for again giving the Selection Scale in

12

Page 13

accordance with the Scheme of the Regulations of  2010 as

the  Regulations  did  not  take  away  the  Selection  Scale

awarded  under  the  earlier  provisions.  The  Division  Bench

clarified  by  way of  example that  if  a  teacher  was awarded

Selection Scale in the year 2002 or prior to it under the old

Regulation and was continuing, then the benefit  of Revised

Pay Scale Rules, could not be denied to him.  

12. After  so  stating,  the  Division  Bench  referred  to  the

decision rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Satyapal Yadav

and Anr.1  Thereafter,  the  Division  Bench  referred  to  the

written arguments submitted by the Joint Director, Pension

and  Pensioners  Welfare  Department,  Government  of

Rajasthan,  considered the  submissions of  the respondents,

referred to paragraph 5 of the memorandum dated 12.9.2008

and dealt  with the submission that  reasoning given in the

memorandum  did  not  entitle  the  respondents  revision  of

pension in the corresponding pay scale  of  Rs.37400-67000

with  AGP  of  Rs.9000,  and  declined  to  accept  the  same.

Eventually, the Division Bench ruled thus:-

“It  is  admitted  that  all  the  respondents  were 1 LPA No. 1955 of 2012 decided on 14.1.2013.

13

Page 14

serving as Lecturers in the Selection Scale on the date  of  their  retirement,  which  is  prior  to 01.01.2006  when  the  recommendations  of  the Sixth Pay Commission were enforced.  It is also admitted  that  all  the  respondents  were considered  for  grant  of  Selection  Scale  pay  in accordance  with  the  then  prevailing  UGC guidelines,  under  which  they  were,  after completing  3  years  of  service  subjected  to screening  including  consideration  of  their refresher  and  orientation  courses  and  research material.  They were drawing their pay in Senior Scale prior to their retirement and thus they were entitled  for  revision  of  their  pay  scale  in accordance  with  the  corresponding  pay  scale applicable  to  their  post.   The  Sixth  Pay Commission recommended for two pay scales of Lecturers  (Selection  Scale).   The  first  was applicable to those, who had not completed three years of  service in the existing pay scale as on 01.01.2006,  and  the  second  category  was  of those, who have completed 3 years of service in the  existing  pay  scale  as  on  01.01.2006  and onwards, subject to the guidelines issued in this regard.   The  University  Grants  Commission Regulations  of  2010  could  not  be  given retrospective effect  and further these guidelines were not  applicable to those,  who were already placed in the Selection Scale.  The respondents, therefore,  after  the  award  of  the  pay  scales applicable of Lecturer (Selection Scale), could not be  treated  in  the  lower  pay  scale  as  they  had completed 3 years of service prior to 01.01.2006. They could not be artificially placed back into the Selection  Scale  which  was  applicable,  to  those who  had  not  completed  3  years  service  in  the existing  pay  in  the  Selection  Scale  as  on 01.01.2006.”

13. We  have  heard  Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  learned  Solicitor

General of India, on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Shobha

14

Page 15

and  Mr.  Ranbir  Singh  Yadav,  learned  counsel  for  the

respondents.  

14. Learned Solicitor General has submitted that the order

of High Court of Punjab and Haryana has no application in

the  present  case  inasmuch  as  the  State  of  Haryana  had

adopted/incorporated  the  recommendations  of  the  6th Pay

Commission completely, which is not the case with State of

Rajasthan;  and  more  importantly  the  order  that  was

challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was

that  of  Higher  Education Commissioner,  dated 07.09.2010,

which reversed the grant of benefit of extending the pay band

of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000 to those Lecturers

who had retired before 01.01.2006, as decided by the High

Level  Committee  constituting  of  Chief  Secretary,  Finance

Secretary and Education Secretary of Govt. of Haryana vide

order dated 27.08.2009.  

15. Learned  Solicitor  General  further  submitted  that  the

High Court has failed to appreciate that in terms of Rule 165

of  Rajasthan Civil  Service (Pension)  Rules, 1996 as well  as

Rule 3 of Notification dated 12.10.2009, if any doubt arises as

to the interpretation of the said Rules it shall be referred to

15

Page 16

Finance Department and the Finance Department has, vide

its  letter  dated  22.01.2010  and  Memorandums  dated

18.06.2013 and 26.05.2014, clarified the said issue and the

said  clarifications  have  not  been  challenged.   It  is  further

urged by him that the notifications issued by the Ministry of

Human  Resource  Development  dated  31.12.2008  and

15.12.2009  relating  to  Revision  of  Pay  and  Revision  of

Pension are not binding on the State of Rajasthan as they are

specifically for lecturers in Central Universities/Colleges, and

moreover the State can decide its own policy and not to act in

accordance of what the Central Government has decided.  It

is  further  urged by him that  there is  a difference between

Revision of Pay and Revision of Pension, and the notification

dated 12.10.2009 relating to revision of pay is only applicable

to the existing employees and not to those who had retired

prior to 01.01.2006.  

16. Learned counsel for the respondents, while rebutting the

submissions of the learned Solicitor General appearing for the

appellants, would submit that the claim of the appellants that

2009 Rules notified on 12.10.2009 are meant for employees

who  were  on  the  roll  as  on  01.01.2006  is  fallacious  and

16

Page 17

contrary  to  the  scope  and  object  of  the  2009  Rules  and

Paragraph 5 of the Memorandum dated 12.09.2008 inasmuch

as  the  Division  Bench  as  well  as  the  Single  Bench  has

recorded that  the pension of  respondents has been revised

pursuant to the revision of pay scale as per the Notification

dated 12.10.2009. The learned counsel would further submit

that  there  is  no  justification  in  the  submission  of  the

appellants that the respondents would be eligible for pension

in terms of the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 with AGP of

Rs. 8000 and not Rs. 37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9000,

for  the  respondents  who  have  been  granted  the  lecturer

(Selection Scale) have already completed more than 3 years of

service in the said post. While refuting the submission of the

appellants that the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court

is not applicable in the present case, the learned counsel for

the respondents would submit that the rules are similar and

the controversy raised before the Punjab and Haryana High

Court and this court are identical. In this regard, the counsel

for the respondents has relied on Clause 6 of  the Haryana

Revised Pension Rules which is identical to Paragraph 5 of

the memorandum dated 12.09.2008.   

17

Page 18

17. To appreciate the controversy in proper perspective, we

think it appropriate to compare in juxtaposition Rule 6(1) of

the  Haryana  Civil  Services  (Revised  Pension)  Part-I  Rules,

2009  and  paragraph  5(i)  of  the  Memorandum  dated

12.9.2008 and accordingly they are reproduced hereunder:-

Haryana  Civil  Services  (Revised Pension) Part-I Rules, 2009

Circular / Memorandum

Rule 6(1)

(1) The fixation of revised entitlement of  pension  shall  be  subject  to  the provision that the revised entitlement of pension so worked out shall, in no case, be lower than fifty per cent of the  minimum of  the  pay  in  the  pay band  +  grade  pay  in  the corresponding revised scale in terms of  Haryana  Civil  Services  (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, or as the case may be,  Haryana Civil  Services (Assured Career  Progression)  Rules,  2008,  to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.  

Paragraph 5 (i)

The consolidated pension  (treated as final ‘basic pension’) as on 1.9.2006 of pre-01.9.2006  pensioner  shall  not  be lower than 50% of sum of the minimum pay of the post in the running pay band plus  grade  pay  introduced  w.e.f. 1.9.2006  corresponding  to  the pre-revised pay scale of the post from which pensioner had retired.  Subject to  the  condition  that  the  existing provisions  in  the  rules  governing qualifying service for grant of pension and minimum pension shall continue to be operative.

18. We  are  absolutely  conscious  that  we  had  already

reproduced  paragraph  5(i)  earlier  but  we  have  quoted  it

hereinabove to appreciate the impact and import of the same

in juxtaposition of the Haryana Rules.  There is no shadow of

doubt that the language employed in 2009 Rules of Haryana

and the Circular/Memorandum dated 12.9.2008 are slightly

different  but  the  import  and  impact  is  the  same.   It  is

18

Page 19

appropriate to note here that placing reliance on the same,

the State of Haryana, vide memorandum dated 10.7.2009 had

denied the benefit of pension to the retired employees.  The

High Court had quashed the same which has been affirmed

by this Court.  Similarly, in the present case, the benefit is

deprived vide order dated 22.1.2010.  There is no cavil over

the fact that the respondents have been fitted into a pay band

and extended the benefit of pension under the revision of pay

from 2006 as the respondents had completed three years of

service.   Paragraph  5  clearly  lays  the  postulate  that  the

consolidated pension (treated as final  basic  pension)  as on

1.9.2006, all pre-1.9.2006 pensioner shall not be lower than

50% of sum of the minimum pay of the post in the running

pay  band  plus  grade  pay  introduced  w.e.f.  1.9.2006

corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of the post from

which pensioner had retired.  The only rider is the minimum

qualifying service and all the respondents have the experience

of three years by 1.9.2006.  As the factual score would depict,

the respondents were paid pension on a lower band after the

revision of the pay scale despite the fact that the persons who

were  already  in  service  with  the  similar  qualification  have

19

Page 20

been kept in the higher pay band plus grade pay.     

19. Paragraph 5 requires to be scrutinised and on such a

scrutiny  it  becomes  graphically  clear  that  pension  of  a

pre-1.9.2006 pensioner shall not be lower than 50% of sum of

the minimum of post in the running pay band plus grade pay

introduced w.e.f.  1.9.2006 corresponding to the pre-revised

scale of the post.  If the pay scale is taken into consideration,

the  corresponding  pay  revision  would  be  Rs.37400-67000

with Rs.9000 AGP.  The only qualifier is three years service in

that  scale.   There  is  no  scintilla  of  doubt  that  all  the

respondents meet that criteria.  It is a well known principle

that pension is not a bounty.  The benefit is conferred upon

an employee for his unblemished career.  In D.S. Nakara v.

Union  of  India2,  D.A.  Desai,  J.  speaking  for  the  Bench

opined that:-

“18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will  include even the State,  bound to pay pen- sion? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service?

2  (1983)  1 SCC 305

20

Page 21

19.  What  is  a  pension?  What  are  the  goals  of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If  it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division  of  retirement  pre  and  post  a  certain date? We need seek answer to these and inciden- tal questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition.

20.  The  antiquated  notion  of  pension  being  a bounty  a  gratuitous  payment  depending  upon the  sweet  will  or  grace  of  the  employer  not claimable as a right and, therefore,  no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept  under  the  carpet  by  the  decision of  the Constitution  Bench  in  Deokinandan  Prasad v. State of Bihar3 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it  does  not  depend  upon  the  discretion  of  the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any- one’s  discretion.  It  is  only  for  the  purpose  of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the offi- cer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh4.”

20. We may hasten to add that though the said decision has

been explained and diluted on certain other aspects, but the

paragraphs which we have reproduced as a concept holds the

filed as it is a fundamental concept in service jurisprudence.

3  (1971) 2 SCC 330 4  (1976) 2 SCC 1

21

Page 22

It  will  be  appropriate  and  apposite  on  the  part  of  the

employers to remember the same and ingeminate it time and

again so that unnecessary litigation do not travel to the Court

and  the  employers  show  a  definite  and  correct  attitude

towards employees.   We are compelled to say so as we find

that the intention of the State Government from paragraph 5

of  the  circular/memorandum has  been litigated  at  various

stages to deny the benefits to the respondents.  It is the duty

of the State Government to avoid unwarranted litigations and

not to encourage any litigation for the sake of litigation.  The

respondents were entitled to get the benefit of pension and

the High Court has placed reliance on the decision of another

High Court which has already been approved by this Court.

True it is, there is slight difference in the use of language in

the  Haryana  Pension  Rules  2009  and  the  circular/

memorandum issued by the State of Rajasthan, but a critical

analysis  would  show  that  the  final  consequence  is  not

affected.   

21. It is urged before us that it will  put a heavy financial

burden on the State.  The said submission has been seriously

resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents by urging

22

Page 23

that hardly 200-250 retired lecturers in the selection scale are

alive in praesenti and the State cannot take a plea of financial

burden to deny the legitimate dues of the respondents.

22. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not perceive any

merit  in  this  batch  of  appeals  and  accordingly,  the  same

stands  dismissed.   The  benefit  shall  be  extended  to  the

respondents within a span of three months from today failing

which the accrued sum shall carry interest @ 9% per annum

till realisation.  There shall be no order as to costs.

........................................J.     [DIPAK MISRA]

........................................J.                      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

NEW DELHI JULY 1, 2015.

23