1990 JTR(SC) 247
1991 2 SCC 265
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Punchhi, Ranganath Mishra
WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF ABSORBED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Writ Petition No. 1068 of 1987, decided on April 12, 1990.
Employees who commute their entire pension constitute a different class from those who commute partially; therefore, denying them the benefit of pension revival after 15 years does not violate the right to equality under Article 14.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.14, Art.16
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and Article 32 - Pension - Commutation - Revival of pension - Petitioners seeking extension of benefit of a previous judgment where pension revived after 15 years for those who had commuted pension partially - Petitioners had commuted their entire pension at the time of retirement and absorption into public sector - Persons who commute entire pension belong to a different class from those who commute partially - Commutation provides specific advantages to the commuter - No basis to allege that denial of benefit to this category constitutes infringement of Article 14.
Facts of the case:
A class action was filed on behalf of employees absorbed into public enterprises who had commuted their entire pension upon retirement. They sought the benefit of a prior ruling which held that for government servants who commuted their pension partially, the entire pension revived after 15 years from the date of commutation.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners belong to a class different from those in the previous case. Having taken the advantage of commuting the entire pension, they cannot claim the same revival benefits as partial commuters.
Issues: Whether the benefit of pension revival after 15 years is applicable to employees who commuted their entire pension and whether the exclusion of such employees violates the right to equality under Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that there is a clear distinction between the class of employees who commute their pension partially and those who commute it entirely. Since the latter derived specific benefits from full commutation, treating them differently does not violate the principle of equality.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
A class action was filed on behalf of employees absorbed into public enterprises who had commuted their entire pension upon retirement. They sought the benefit of a prior ruling which held that for government servants who commuted their pension partially, the entire pension revived after 15 years from the date of commutation.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners belong to a class different from those in the previous case. Having taken the advantage of commuting the entire pension, they cannot claim the same revival benefits as partial commuters.
Issues: Whether the benefit of pension revival after 15 years is applicable to employees who commuted their entire pension and whether the exclusion of such employees violates the right to equality under Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that there is a clear distinction between the class of employees who commute their pension partially and those who commute it entirely. Since the latter derived specific benefits from full commutation, treating them differently does not violate the principle of equality.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Pension - The court held that the benefit of pension revival after 15 years for partial commutation does not apply to employees who commuted their entire pension.
ORDER
This application under Article 32 of the Constitution is a class action on behalf of the Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises asking for the benefit of the judgment of this Court in "Common Cause" a Registered Society v. Union of India ((1987) 1 SCC 142). The write petition "Common Cause" was on behalf of the government servants who had commuted their pension partially and this Court for the reasons indicated in the judgment came to hold that on the expiry of 15 years from the date of commutation the entire pension revived. The petitioners are person who have, at the time of retirement from government service and entering into the public sector, taken the advantage of commuting the entire pension. They certainly belong to a class different from those whose case was before this Court at the instance of the Common Cause in Writ Petitions Nos. 3958-61 of 1983. Commutation does bring certain advantages to the commute and the class of government officers whom the petitioners seeks to represent have derived such benefits. We do not think there is any basis in the allegation that by not extending the benefit of the decision of this Court referred to above, to the category reprinted by the petitioner there is any infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. We accordingly dismiss the petition. No costs.