- (1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alongwith the similar writ petitions mentioned in Schedule- A, the petitioners seek to quash the Regulation l (ii) of the Pension Regulations, 1990 of the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur making pension regulations effective from 1. 1. 90 being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also seek a declaration that the pension scheme shall be treated as applicable to all employees who have retired on or after 1. 1. 1986.
(2.) SINCE all these writ petitions mentioned in schedule-A and B appended with this order involve an identical question of law,as agreed by the parties,they are being disposed of by this common order. For convenient disposal of these writ petitions, the facts of D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 115/93 are taken into consideration. According to the petitioner he retired from the service of the University on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st of March,1988 as Associate Professor after rendering more than 25 years of service. Earlier in the year 1983 the University Grants Commission constituted a Committee known as Mahrotra Committee to examine the structure of emoluments and conditions of service of the University and College Teachers taking into account the age of superannuation, medical and housing etc. In the year 1986 Mahrotra Committee recommended certain changes to the University Grants Commission which in his turn recommended the same to Government of India wherein clause 6. 12. 2 relates to carrer advancement scheme, revision of pay scale and pensionary benefit making it applicable to the University Teachers from 1. 1. 1986. The syndicate vide resolution no. 223/86 dated 26. 7. 1986 and resolution no. 239/86 dated 8th November,1986 in exercise of the power conferred under section 20 of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 amended the statutes proposing new statute 50, which was approved by the Senate in its meeting held in December, 1986. Thereafter the Syndicate framed University of Jodhpur Pension Regulations, 1990 in exercise of the power vested in statute 5 (2) (iv) and (ix) of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 which were approved by the Finance Committee vide resolution No. 8/91 dated 17. 5. 1991 and by the Senate vide resolution No. 78/91 dated 29. 5. 91, the resolution is marked as Annex. 2. Representations were made by the Associations and employees who were retired prior to 1. 1. 1990 against the applicability of Pension Regulations from 1. 1. 1990. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 15th of January, 1992 constituted a sub-committee to consider the anomalies in the Pension Regulations, 1990. The Sub-Commitee after considering various representations recommended vide Anex-4 that the Syndicate may recommend to the Government that the pension scheme for University employees be implemented w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986. The Syndicate approved the report of the Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 15th of June, 1992 vide resolution No. 55/92 (Annex. 5) with a condition that where-ever there is any financial implications, the matter of amendment as recommended be referred to the Government of Rajasthan for approval. As alleged by the petitioner a number of representations were made to the higher authorities viz. Vice Chancellor, Chief Minister and the Minister for Higher Education for redressal of grievances but of no avail. Dissatisfied with the fixing of cut-off date 1. 1. 1990 for granting pensionary benefits,the petitioner and like others who have retired earlier have challenged the same by means of writ petition under Article 226 to make it applicable from 1. 1. 1986. Separate reply was filed by the University and the State. Rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner and again reply to the rejoinder was filed. Thereafter, additional reply was filed by the State on 25. 7. 94. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and also relevant case law cited at bar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Shyam Sunderlal Sahu Vs. Khadi and Village Industries (S. B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 2486/90, D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India (2), All India Reserved Bank Retired Offecers Assocation Vs. Union of India (J. T. 1990 (6) S. C. 400) and special Application No. 4449/1988 of Gujarat High Court decided on 21. 8. 1990 and submits that petitioner is entitled to get benefit of pension from 1. 1. 1986 instead of 1. 1. 1990,as there is no justification to fix artificial cut off date 1. 1. 1990 fixed by the aforesaid regulation which has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the introduction of this pension scheme and shall be applicable to all employees of the respondents including those who retired on or before 1. 1. 90.
(3.) BEFORE, we proceed it is necessary to discuss some cases cited at bar. The basic authority on the subject is the case of D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India (supra) wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer,nor an exgratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It has been held that all the pensioners have equal right to receive the benefits of liberalised pension scheme. The pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified by an arbitrary unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criterion for the purpose of grant of revised pension. The criterion of date of enforcement of the revised scheme entitling benefits of the revision to those retiring after that date while depriving the benefits to those retiring prior to that date was held to be violative of Article 14 such unconstitutional part can be served from the otherwise constitutional provision by laying down the provision i. e. omitting the offending criterion will not make the scheme having financial implications retrospective in nature. Their lordships also observed that those who render service and retire on superannuation or any other mode of retirement and are in receipt of pension are comprehended in the expression 'pensioners'. They for the purpose of pension benefits form a homogeneous class, which cannot be divided by arbitrarily, fixing an eligibility criterion unrelated to the purpose of revision of pension. Their lordships kept the cut out date intact but extended the benefit not only to those persons who retired on or after March 31,1979 but also to those who had retired earlier to it because pensioners form one homogeneous group or class by themselves which cannot be micro-classified. In krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India (3), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of certain retired railway employees who were claiming to come over to the pension scheme has held that employee under pension scheme and employee under provident fund scheme being held two classes which are distinct to each other. Their lordships have held that pension scheme and a provident fund scheme are statutorily different and those belonging to latter scheme cannot claim to come over to the former scheme as of right on the plea that the cut off date fixed under scheme violated Article 14 of the Constitution. ;