- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix pension of the petitioner in accordance with the Govern ment Orders dated 28th April, 1980 (An-nexure-2 to the writ petition) or Govern ment Orders 18th January, 1983 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ).
(2.) THE Utioner entered into the service of Bareilly College Library, Bareilly as an Assistant on 16th July, 1941 and continued there upto 30th September, 1948. He worked as Librarian in Kedar Nath Girdhari Lal Khattri (Post Graduate) College, Moradabad (here in after referred to as the institution) from 1st October, 1948 to 31st October, 1981. He retired on31st October, 1981. The State Government under the Triple Benefit Scheme for the employees serving in the State aided educational in stitutions by the Government Order No. A-5355-XV/3133-1962 dated December 17,1965 granted triple benefits consisting of (i) Contributory Provident Fund, (ii) Compulsory Life Insurance and (iii) Pen sion including Family Pension. The State Government, consider ing that the amount of pension granted under the aforesaid Government Order dated 17th December, 1965 was meagre, revised the scheme by another Order dated 28th April, 1980. It raised Govern ment contribution to the Provident Fund of teachers of aided educational institu tions and those teachers not opting for the benefits of Government's increased con tributions towards their Provident Fund were made eligible for increased pension as applicable to Government servants. The condition in that event was that the Government contributions towards Provi dent Fund upto 31st March, 1979 shall be refundable with interest by the teachers to Government and shall be deposited by them under the head delicnated there in. This order was made applicable to the teachers of Government aided education al institutions with effect from 1st April, 1979. This Government Order was not ap plicable to other employees of the State aided educational institutions. The State Government by G. O. dated 18th January, 1983 made applicable the aforesaid scheme to other employees of the State aided educational and Post Graduate in stitutions also with effect from 1st Sep tember, 1982. The scheme incorporates completely all the benefits contained in Government Order dated 28th April, 1980 as made applicable to teachers of State institutions.
(3.) THE petitioner submitted repre sentation to the Director of Education on 26th June, 1984 and 29th August, 1985 requesting that he may be granted benefit under the said scheme and be permitted to deposit the Management's contribution of Provident Fund with interest. Similar rep resentation was also submitted to the Education Minister on 30th June, 1984. None of the authorities gave any reply to the petitioner. THE petitioner there upon sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant benefits of pen sion scheme as provided under the Government Order dated 28-4-1980. Learned Standing Counsel was granted time to file counter-affidavit but no counter- affidavit has been filed. The core question is whether the cut off date given in the Government Order dated 18-1-1983 providing the benefits of the scheme of pension as en visaged under Government Order dated 28th April, 1980 only to the employees of the State aided educational institutions retiring on 1st September, 1982, is ar bitrary and discriminatory. Similar ques tion was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued Office Memorandum on May 25, 1979 where by the formula for computa tion of pension was liberalised but was made applicable to Government Servants who retired from service on or after March 31, 1979. The cut off date fixed by this Office Memorandum came under the close scrutiny of the Apex Court. The Government justified the action on the doctrine of classification, namely, the pen sioners who retire prior to a certain date and those who retire subsequent to a cer tain date form distinct and separate class. This contention was rejected holding that all the persons who were in the Govern ment service should be treated as homogeneous class and cannot be divided arbitrarily fixing cut off date unrelated with any purpose for making division. If this classification is further extended to the date of retirement of each servant it will lead to further absurdity.;