- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. The non-finalization and non-payment of pensionary benefit is the subject-matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as teacher on 1-7-1941, and, thereater he was promoted to the post of principal with effect from 14-5-1958. Petitioner has ultimately retired with elect from 30-6-1976. Till the date of moving of present writ petition, pensionary benefit of the petitioner has not been finalized by the respondents. Petitioner had tiled a representation in Hindi, which is set out at Annexure-9 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the said representation has not been disposed of by the respondent authorities by passing a "speaking order". It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the representation of the petitioner has not been properly considered by the respondent authorities, the order passed by them is a nullity in the eye of law as it contains no reason as to why the pension has not been given.
(3.) IT is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pension has been made applicable to all the employees with effect from 1-8-1977 but the petitioner has been discriminated. In support of his contentions, learned counsel referred to the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. S. Nakara v. Union India, 1983 (1) SCC 305. In paragraph 42 of the said Judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as follows :- "if it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits from 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 princi ple 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 liberalize the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date. If the liberalization 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 give something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it 1 would be discriminatory. To illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in the same pay bracket, the average emolument was the same and both had put in equal number of years of service. How does a fortuitous circumstances of retiring a day earlier or a day later will permit total ly unequal treatment in the matter of pension ?";