1996 JTR(SC) 1063
1996 Supp JT 544 ; 1996 5 Scale 691 ; 1996 10 SCC 148 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 1377 ; 1996 Supp3 SCR 595 ; 1996 4 SCT 403 ; 1996 4 SLr 726 ; 1996 6 Supreme 293
1996(6) Supreme 293
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9860 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21843/94)
Decided on 15-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K.C. Pasi, Advocate.
For the Respondents : A.M. Khanwilkar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Pension is a right attached to the office and cannot be denied arbitrarily.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21, Art.14
SERVICE LAW : .
A) The relevant statutory provisions under the service law, read with the constitutional guarantees under Article 14 and Article 21, govern the computation of qualifying service and pensionary benefits for an employee of a market committee who was later absorbed into a newly constituted body following state reorganisation. Clause 23 of Chapter VI of the scheme prescribed that qualifying service shall commence from the later of the date the employee takes charge or the date the employer started deducting provident fund, a provision that the court interpreted in conjunction with constitutional safeguards to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fairness.
B) The clause was read down so that the qualifying service is determined by whichever date is earlier, thereby upholding the validity of the provision and preventing denial of pension as a right based on unreasonable classification. Pension is not a bounty but an earned right, and any interpretation that offends Article 14 is invalidated.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as a peon cum watchman in 1957, continued service after state reorganisation, joined the relevant committee post-reorganisation, retired in 1991 after approximately 35 years of service, and had his qualifying service computed from 1969 on the ground of delayed provident fund deductions, denying earlier service and dearness allowance.
Findings of Court:
The court held that reading down the word 'later' to 'earlier' renders the clause valid and compliant with Article 14, and directed that pension be computed from the earlier date of appointment, with arrears payable within two months.
Issues:
Whether the clause prescribing computation from the later of the two dates is constitutionally valid, and whether the appellant is entitled to pension and dearness allowance from the date of original appointment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The clause must be interpreted in a manner that upholds constitutional rights under Article 14, and the word 'later' must be read as 'earlier' to prevent arbitrariness, thereby entitling the employee to pension from the date of actual appointment.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order is set aside, and the pension is to be computed from April 1, 1957, with arrears paid accordingly.
A) The relevant statutory provisions under the service law, read with the constitutional guarantees under Article 14 and Article 21, govern the computation of qualifying service and pensionary benefits for an employee of a market committee who was later absorbed into a newly constituted body following state reorganisation. Clause 23 of Chapter VI of the scheme prescribed that qualifying service shall commence from the later of the date the employee takes charge or the date the employer started deducting provident fund, a provision that the court interpreted in conjunction with constitutional safeguards to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fairness.
B) The clause was read down so that the qualifying service is determined by whichever date is earlier, thereby upholding the validity of the provision and preventing denial of pension as a right based on unreasonable classification. Pension is not a bounty but an earned right, and any interpretation that offends Article 14 is invalidated.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as a peon cum watchman in 1957, continued service after state reorganisation, joined the relevant committee post-reorganisation, retired in 1991 after approximately 35 years of service, and had his qualifying service computed from 1969 on the ground of delayed provident fund deductions, denying earlier service and dearness allowance.
Findings of Court:
The court held that reading down the word 'later' to 'earlier' renders the clause valid and compliant with Article 14, and directed that pension be computed from the earlier date of appointment, with arrears payable within two months.
Issues:
Whether the clause prescribing computation from the later of the two dates is constitutionally valid, and whether the appellant is entitled to pension and dearness allowance from the date of original appointment.
Ratio Decidendi:
The clause must be interpreted in a manner that upholds constitutional rights under Article 14, and the word 'later' must be read as 'earlier' to prevent arbitrariness, thereby entitling the employee to pension from the date of actual appointment.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order is set aside, and the pension is to be computed from April 1, 1957, with arrears paid accordingly.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench made on November 11, 1993 in Writ Petition No. 3505/93. The appellant was working as on April 1, 1957 as Peon-cum-Watchman in the Hyderabad Agricultural Committee. Consequent upon the State s reorganisation, the appellant had gone to and joined the service of the Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti at Jalna district. He retired from service on April 1, 1991 after completing about 35 years of service. His qualifying service was computed w.e.f. October 1, 1969. He claimed the service from the date of his appointment. It was denied on the ground that he started contributing towards Provident Fund w.e.f. the aforesaid date and, therefore, his pensionary benefit required to be computed from that date.
3. Clause 23 of Chapter VI in the scheme reads as under :
"Qualifying service of a Market Committee employee shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed or from the date of employer started deducting the P.F. contribution for the employee which ever later."
4. A reading clearly indicates that the qualifying service is from the date he takes charge of the post to which the was first appointed or from the date the employer started deduction of provident fund from the employee, whichever is later. Pension is not a bounty of the State. It is earned by the employee for service rendered to fall back, after retirement. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied. Therefore, we read down the rule. We hold that reading the rule which is "later" must be read down to whichever is "earlier". If so read, the rule is valid. Otherwise, it would be arbitrary offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Khanwilkar, learned counsel for the respondent contending that the appellant is not entitled to the D.A.; on the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant contended that pursuant to the order passed by the High Court to pay D.A. resolution had already been passed by the Committee and the D.A. has already been paid to him.
5. The pensionary benefit will be computed from April 1, 1957 within two months from the date of receipt of this order and payment of arrears be paid accordingly.
6. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******