STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SEVANIVATRA KARAMCHARI HITKARI SAMITI
LAWS(SC)-1995-1-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
January 03,1995
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
D S NAKARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]KRISHENA KUMAR BALBIR SINGH DESH RAJ KOHLI R N MUBAYI PRESIDENT ALL INDIA RETIRED RAILWAYMEN P F TERMS ASSOCIATION BRIJ MOHAN KAUL K RAVI VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN SERVICES LEAGUE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAJASTHAN PENSIONER SAMAJ [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. PREM RAJ [LAWS(SC)-1997-2-89] [DISCUSSED : 1995 SCC (LANDS) 415 : 1995 29 ATC 199]UNION OF INDIA VS. K G RADHAKRISHANA PANICKAR [LAWS(SC)-1998-4-4] [DISTINGUISHED]
MINOR ARPITA J BAMANIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1995-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
CIVIL ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-206] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND NATH DEVENDRA PAL SHARMA AND ATUL KRISHNA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
SUKDEB ROY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-1998-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
AGARTALA BENCH AGHORE DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
SUMEET ENTERPRISES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2005-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
S NAGENDER VS. GOVRNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2006-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
LITTLE ANGELS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION [LAWS(APH)-2011-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
GULMOHAR GRIHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA SAMITI INDORE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1998-7-27] [REFERRED]
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. VASANT GANESH VAIDYA [LAWS(MPH)-1998-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
N RAJALAKSHMI MINOR VS. DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION [LAWS(MAD)-1998-6-39] [REFERRED]
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU VS. THIRUKKOIL PANIYALARGAL SANGAM AMBASAMUDRAM [LAWS(MAD)-2000-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. B RAMAMURTHY [LAWS(SC)-1995-1-106] [REFERRED TO]
PREMJI KHANJI MASANI VS. REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1999-9-7] [RELIED ON]
K GUNDACCHAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1997-11-29] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN COCHIN DOCK LABOUR BOARD VS. DOCK LABOUR BOARD EX EMLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(KER)-2000-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
SINDHU VISHWANATH PHADAKE VS. PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA PUNE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
I T C LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1997-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
SONA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1998-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
LALITA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1999-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2001-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM SHILA KUER VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2002-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
SITA DEVI VS. THE CHAIRMAN, N.H.P.C.LTD. [LAWS(HPH)-1995-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
Prabhat Chandra VS. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya [LAWS(MPH)-1996-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
BISHAPIT KISSAN SANGHARSH MORCHA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2013-8-105] [REFERRED TO]
AGHORE DEBBARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2002-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
A.N. SACHDEVA VS. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY AND ORS [LAWS(SC)-2015-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR BELEL AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1995-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI LAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV NARAIN UPPAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2002-10-156] [REFERRED]
KALIPADA MISHRA VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-3-59] [REFERRED]
U PALANI VS. REGISTRAR, ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY AND ANR [LAWS(MAD)-2000-12-129] [REFERRED]
I T C LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1995-8-69] [REFERRED]
VIMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1995-5-194] [REFERRED]
FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
SUGIA KUNWAR, W/O LATE BHIKHAR PASWAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-11-140] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR TRUCK OWNER ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
G. N. Ray, J. -
(1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)In this appeal a Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court dated December 21, 1989 striking down the date i.e. February 29, 1964 mentioned in Rule 268-H of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is under challenge. The respondent, Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti, Jodhpur, an unregistered association of retired employees of the Government of Rajasthan, moved a Writ Petition in the Rajasthan High Court inter alia contending that the expression "in service on 29-2-1964 who is" as used in Rule 268-H of the Rajasthan Service Rules was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also contended that such Rule was also in conflict with the principle laid down in the decision of this Court rendered in D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130. It was also contended that the said expression being severable from the other part of Rule 268-H, the same should be struck down so that the validity of Rule 268-H without the aforesaid expression is not affected.
(3.)By the impugned judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has held that under Rule 268-H, the benefit of pension has been given only to the government servants who are in service on 29-2-1964 but such benefit under Rule 268-H was not extended to the government servants who had retired prior to that date. The Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no reasonable classification in excluding government servants who were not in service on 29-2-1964 and limiting the benefit of liberalised Family Pension Scheme under Rule 268-H only to such government servants who were in service on 29-2-1964. The High Court has also held that such classification without any reasonable basis for discrimination cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this Court rendered in D. S. Nakaras case, (supra).
(2.)In this appeal a Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court dated December 21, 1989 striking down the date i.e. February 29, 1964 mentioned in Rule 268-H of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, is under challenge. The respondent, Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti, Jodhpur, an unregistered association of retired employees of the Government of Rajasthan, moved a Writ Petition in the Rajasthan High Court inter alia contending that the expression "in service on 29-2-1964 who is" as used in Rule 268-H of the Rajasthan Service Rules was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also contended that such Rule was also in conflict with the principle laid down in the decision of this Court rendered in D. S. Nakara vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130. It was also contended that the said expression being severable from the other part of Rule 268-H, the same should be struck down so that the validity of Rule 268-H without the aforesaid expression is not affected.
(3.)By the impugned judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has held that under Rule 268-H, the benefit of pension has been given only to the government servants who are in service on 29-2-1964 but such benefit under Rule 268-H was not extended to the government servants who had retired prior to that date. The Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no reasonable classification in excluding government servants who were not in service on 29-2-1964 and limiting the benefit of liberalised Family Pension Scheme under Rule 268-H only to such government servants who were in service on 29-2-1964. The High Court has also held that such classification without any reasonable basis for discrimination cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this Court rendered in D. S. Nakaras case, (supra).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.