- (1.)Leave granted. Heard Dr. A. Francis Julian, learned senior counsel or the Appellant and Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State.
(2.)The Appellant preferred OA No. 6705/1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for issuance of direction to the State Government to extend the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 461, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 31.07.1996 in respect of the persons who have retired prior. As the factual matrix would unveil, the said O.A., by operation of law, stood transferred to High Court forming the subject matter of W.P. No. 36651 of 2005.
(3.)It was contended by the learned Single Judge that the State Government had arbitrarily fixed the date as 01.07.1996 picking it from the hat and, therefore, it is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge considered the stipulations in G.O. Ms. No. 461, Finance (Pension) Department and taking note of the fact that the qualifying service for full pension has been reduced from 33 years to 30 years due to the reason that maximum age limit for entering into Government service has been raised to 28 years, which was originally 24 years and the age of retirement has been reduced to 58 years opined that even if a person who retired after completion of full service, would not get full pension. That was the fundamental reason for fixing the cut-off-date and on that ground the learned Single Judge did not strike down the Government Notification as unconstitutional.