1997 JTR(SC) 1553
1998 AIR(SC) 658 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 279 ; 1998 AllLJ 293 ; 1998 1 AWC 660 ; 1998 1 CLR 393 ; 1998 78 FLR 287 ; 1997 9 JT 395 ; 1998 LIC 889 ; 1998 1 LLN 42 ; 1998 1 RSJ 345 ; 1997 7 Scale 299 ; 1998 1 SCC 449 ; 1998 SCC(L&S) 300 ; 1997 SCR 581 ; 1998 1 SCT 274 ; 1998 1 SLR 95 ; 1998 1 UPLBEC 8 ; 1998 KHC 665 ; 1997 10 Supreme 272
1997(10) Supreme 272
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sujata V. Manohar and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
State of U.P. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Jogendra Singh & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2061 of 1991
Decided on 28-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K.S. Chauhan, (K.P. Singh) Advocate for R.B. Misra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Goodwill Indeevar, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
SERVICE LAW : .
UTTAR PRADESH FUNDAMENTAL RULES : R.56(c)
(A) The provisions of the Constitution of India, read alongside the Service Law and specifically the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, govern the retirement benefits of government servants. The case hinges on Section 56(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules (Amendment Act) of 18.11.1976, which introduced a proviso allowing for the inclusion of up to five additional years of service for pension and gratuity calculations. This amendment applied only to retirements effected after its commencement, and due to its prospective nature, it did not alter the benefits calculated for those who had already retired prior to its enactment.
(B) Key legal principles include that amendments to service rules are prospective and do not have a retrospective effect unless expressly stated. A government servant who retires after meeting the qualifying age or service conditions is entitled to benefits as stipulated by the rules in force at the time of retirement. Voluntary retirement under Rule 56(c) permits the recognition of additional service for pension purposes only if it occurred after the relevant proviso was enacted.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a Senior Prosecuting Officer, completed thirty-one and a half years of service and opted for voluntary retirement on 12th April 1976, receiving retirement benefits under the then-effective rules. The amendment inserting the proviso to Rule 56(e) was enacted on 18th November 1976. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed in the High Court seeking pension and gratuity benefits under the amended rules, which was allowed.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively to the respondents retirement, as it occurred before the proviso was inserted. The benefits were correctly calculated under the rules applicable at the time of retirement, and the High Courts order was not sustainable.
Issues:
Whether a government servant who retired prior to the introduction of a specific proviso is entitled to the benefit of that proviso for the computation of pension or gratuity.
Ratio Decidendi:
Amendments to service rules that are prospective in nature do not benefit those who retired before the amendment came into effect; consequently, the respondent could not claim the additional five years of service for pension purposes.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court order is set aside, and no costs are awarded.
(A) The provisions of the Constitution of India, read alongside the Service Law and specifically the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, govern the retirement benefits of government servants. The case hinges on Section 56(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules (Amendment Act) of 18.11.1976, which introduced a proviso allowing for the inclusion of up to five additional years of service for pension and gratuity calculations. This amendment applied only to retirements effected after its commencement, and due to its prospective nature, it did not alter the benefits calculated for those who had already retired prior to its enactment.
(B) Key legal principles include that amendments to service rules are prospective and do not have a retrospective effect unless expressly stated. A government servant who retires after meeting the qualifying age or service conditions is entitled to benefits as stipulated by the rules in force at the time of retirement. Voluntary retirement under Rule 56(c) permits the recognition of additional service for pension purposes only if it occurred after the relevant proviso was enacted.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a Senior Prosecuting Officer, completed thirty-one and a half years of service and opted for voluntary retirement on 12th April 1976, receiving retirement benefits under the then-effective rules. The amendment inserting the proviso to Rule 56(e) was enacted on 18th November 1976. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed in the High Court seeking pension and gratuity benefits under the amended rules, which was allowed.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively to the respondents retirement, as it occurred before the proviso was inserted. The benefits were correctly calculated under the rules applicable at the time of retirement, and the High Courts order was not sustainable.
Issues:
Whether a government servant who retired prior to the introduction of a specific proviso is entitled to the benefit of that proviso for the computation of pension or gratuity.
Ratio Decidendi:
Amendments to service rules that are prospective in nature do not benefit those who retired before the amendment came into effect; consequently, the respondent could not claim the additional five years of service for pension purposes.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court order is set aside, and no costs are awarded.
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-At the material time, respondent No. 1 was holding the post of Senior Prosecuting Officer, Agra. The date of birth of respondent No. 1 was 20.10.1919. In the ordinary course, he would have retired on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years on 20th of October, 1977. The first respondent, however, took voluntary retirement after completion of thirty one and a half years of service on 12th of April, 1976. He has been granted retirement benefits including pension and gratuity accordingly. Respondent No. 1 took voluntary retirement under the provisions Fundamental Rule 56 of Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. Under Rule 56(c), "the Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying service of 20 years." By the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment Act), 1976, certain amendments were made to Rule 56. Under one such amendment, sub-clause (e) of Rule 56 was amended by adding a proviso. Original Fundamental Rule 56(e) provided as follows:
"56 (e): A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rules."
The proviso which was added was as follows:
"Provided that where a Government servant voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whichever be less;"
The Amending Act is of 18.11.1976. Therefore, the proviso came into effect on 18.11.1976.
2. The first respondent contends that although he had retired at a time when the proviso was not incorporated in the Fundamental Rules, he should be given the benefit of the proviso and an additional service of one and a half years should be counted for the purposes of his pension and gratuity. He filed in February, 1989, about 13 years after the amendment, a writ petition in the High Court claiming the benefit of the proviso to Fundamental Rule 56(e). His writ petition has been allowed by the High Court and hence the present appeal has been filed before us by the State of U.P.
3. The claim of respondent No. 1 has been allowed by the High Court on the basis of the ratio of the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India1. The ratio in Nakara s case (supra), however, is not applicable in the present case. In Nakara s case (supra), a specific cut-off date was provided for the grant of pensionary benefits. Those who had retired prior to that date were not given the benefits. This was considered as arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of that case. There is no question of any cut-off date being prescribed in the present case. The first respondent was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. On the date when he took voluntary retirement and left service, he was given retirement benefits on the basis of the Fundamental Rules and other provisions which were then in force. Fundamental Rule 56 has been subsequently amended by an amendment which came into force on 18th of November, 1976 because the amendment inserting the proviso came on the statute book on that date. It will, therefore, be applicable to all those who take voluntary retirement after the proviso was inserted. All laws, in this sense, are prospective unless they are made retrospective either expressly or by necessary implication. The Amending Act did not make the amendment retrospective. Therefore, persons who retired at a time when the proviso was not on the statute book cannot claim the benefit of the proviso. The first respondent having retired prior to the insertion of the proviso in Fundamental Rule 56(e), cannot claim the benefit of the proviso.
4. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. However, at the time when special leave was granted in the present appeal, it was limited to the question whether an employee who had retired before the introduction of the proviso would be entitled to the benefit of that proviso for the purpose of computation of pension or gratuity. This Court had made it clear that in the case of the respondent, the Court did not propose to interfere with the order granting any benefit to him of the impugned order in view of the special facts of the case. We order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
**********