VERMA - (1.) THESE writ petitions by ex-servicemen are a sequel to the decision in D.S.Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 2 SCR 165:(AIR 1983 SC 130), in which the reliefs claimed are based solely on the decision in Nakara's case. The real point for decision, therefore, is whether the reliefs claimed in these writ petitions flow as a necessary corollary to the decision in Nakara. This being the sole basis for the reliefs claimed in these writ petitions, the petitioners can succeed only if this assumption by them is correct. Writ Petitions Nos. 13550-55 of 1984 are by ex-servicemen who retired from a commissioned rank while Writ Petns. Nos. 547-50 of 1985 are by those who retired from below the Commissioned rank. Writ Petition No. 4524 of 1985 by, an ex-serviceman has been received by post and is substantially to the same effect. Petitioner No. 1 in the first two sets of writ petitions is a Society representing the ex-servicemen while the other petitioners in these writ petitions are ex-servicemen of the three wings of the Armed Forces, namely, Army, Navy and Air Force. In order to appreciate the contentions in these writ petitions, it would be appropriate to first refer briefly to the decision in D.' S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 2 SCR 165: (AIR 1983 SC 130).
(2.) ON 25/05/1979, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, issued Office Memorandum No. F-19(3)-EV-79 whereby the formula for computation of pension was liberalised but made applicable only to civil servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retired from service on or after that date. The liberalised pension formula introduced a slab system, raised the ceiling and provided for a better average of emoluments for computation of pension and the liberalised scheme was made applicable to employees governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, retiring on or after the specified date. The pension for the Armed Forces personnel is governed by the relevant regulations. By the Memorandum of the Ministry of Defence bearing No. B/40725/ AG / PS4-C/ 1816/ AD (Pension)/ Services dt. 28/09/1979, the liberalised pension formula introduced for the civil servants governed by the 1972 Rules was extended to the Armed Forces personnel subject to the limitations set out in the Memorandum with a condition that the new rules of pension would be effective from 1/04/1979 and would be applicable to all service officers who become/ became non-effective on or after that date. These memoranda were Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 in Nakara. Consequently, the liberalised pension formula was made applicable prospectively only to those who retired on or after 31/03/1979 in case of civil servants covered bv 1972 Rules and in respect of Armed Forces personnel who became non-effective on or after 1/04/1979. The result was that those who retired prior to the specified date were not entitled to the benefits of liberalised pension formula in view of the cut-off date of retirement specified in the Memoranda. This led to the filing of the writ petition by D. S. Nakara and others on behalf of retired civil servants and personnel of the Armed Forces wherein it was contended that differential treatment to the pensioners related to the date of retirement by the revised formula for computation of pension was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The question for decision in Nakara was whether the date of retirement is a relevant consideration for eligibility when a liberalised pension formula for computation of pension is introduced and made effective from a specified date resulting in denial of the benefits of the liberalised pension formula to pensioners who had retired prior to the specified date. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Nakara (AIR 1983 SC 130) after elaborately discussing the concept of pension, summed up the position thus:- "Pension to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as. administered in India appears to be a compensation for service rendered in the past... Summing-up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon. The discernible purpose thus underlying pension scheme or a statute introducing the pension scheme must inform interpretative process and accordingly it should receive a liberal construction and the courts may not so interpret such statute as to render them inane (see American Jurisprudence 2nd 881)." After summing up the concept of pension as above, the Constitution Bench set out the challenge of the petitioners in that case and indicated that the challenge was merely to that part of the scheme by which its benefits were confined to those who retired from service after a certain date. Even though, undoubtedly the benefit of the scheme is available only from the specified date irrespective of the date of retirement of the concerned Government servants, it was pointed out that all pensioners irrespective of the date of their retirement constitute one class for grant of the benefits of the liberalised pension scheme and no further classification within them is permissible for this purpose with reference to their date of retirement. This was stated thus:- "If it appears to be indisputable, 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 liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to government servants then those who retired earlier cannot be worst off than those who retire 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 equal placed, it would be discriminatory... ....The artificial division stares into face and is unrelated to any principle and whatever principle, if there be any, has absolutely no nexus to the objects to sought to liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counter productive and runs counter to the whole gamut of pension scheme. The equal treatment guaranteed in Art. 14 is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being statutory in character, since the specifieddate,the rules accord differentialand discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of commutation of pension . A 48 h6 rs difference in matter of' retirement would have a traumatic ellect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled. Therefore, the classification does not stand the test of Art.14." (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) THE judgment then proceeded to show that there was no difficulty or inequity in granting the benefits of the liberalised pension scheme to all retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement by indicating as under:- ... "Assuming the Government had not prescribed the specified date and thereby provided that those retiring pre and post the specified date would all be governed by the liberalised pension scheme, undoubtedly, it would be both prospective and retroactive. Only the pension will have to be recomputed in the light of the formula enacted in 'tFe liberalised pension scheme and effective trom the date the revised scheme comes into force. And beware that it is not a new sche e, it is only a revision of existing scheme. It is not a new retiral benefit. It is an upward revision of an existing benefit. If it was a wholly new concept, a new retiral benefit, one could have. appreciated an argument that those who had already retired could not expect it... : "It was very seriously contended, remove the event correlated to date and examine whether the scheme is workable. We find no difficulty in implementing the scheme omitting the event happening after tie specified date retaining the more humane formula for computation of pension.It would apply to all existing pensioners and future pensioners .In the case of existing pensioners,the pension will have to be recomputed by applying the rule of average emoluments as set out in rule 34 and introducing the slab system and the amount worked out within the floor and the ceiling. But we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required to be made (sic) because to that extent the scheme is prospective. All pensioners whenever they retire would be covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because the scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner governed by 1972 Rules. THE date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from the specified date. No arrears would be payable. And that would take care of the grievance of retrospectivity. In our opinion, it would make a marginal difference in the case of past pensioners because the emoluments are not revised... .." (Emphasis supplied) It was then pointed out that there is absolutely no difficulty in removing arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme which is only the portion confining its applicability to retirees subsequent to the specified date since it could be easily severed. It was held that it would be just and proper to retain the specified date for implementation of the liberalised pension scheme while applying it equally to all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement requiring the pension of each to be recomputed as on the specified date and the future payments to be made in accordance with fresh computation under the liberalised pension scheme as enacted in the impugned memoranda. Thus all retirees irrespective of their date of retirement were treated as constituting one class entitled to the benefits of the liberalised pension to be recomputed as on the specified date according to the liberalised formula requiring payment to be made prospectively from the specified date of the revised amount. In other words, the benefit of the liberalised pension formula was given equally to all retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement and for this purpose, recomputation was required to be made as on the specified date on the basis of the emolument's payable on the actual date of retirement of each retiree. The ultimate relief granted in Nakara (AIR 1983 SC 130) is as under:- "... .... Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible. Let a writ to that effect be issued... ... " (Emphasis supplied) ;