Arbitrary cut-off date in superannuation reform struck down; excluded retirees were entitled to the restored benefit.

A date-based exclusion that denied the restored higher age of superannuation to employees who had retired during the interregnum was held arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Court applied the settled test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus, and found no justification for excluding the very class affected by the remedial legislation. It further held that concerns about administrative chaos did not validate the discrimination, since relief could be moulded through reinstatement, compensation, or supernumerary posts. The offending exclusionary word in the Ordinance and Amending Act was severed, and the retired employees were entitled to the benefit of the restored age of superannuation, subject to the directions issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether employees who had retired on attaining the reduced age of superannuation between 28.02.1983 and 23.08.1984 could be validly excluded from the benefit of the subsequent legislation restoring the higher age of superannuation, and whether the exclusionary clause in the Ordinance and Amending Act offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The reduction of the age of superannuation was later acknowledged by the State to have caused injustice, and the subsequent Ordinance and Act were enacted to undo that wrong and restore the earlier position. In that setting, classifying employees solely by reference to the date on which they happened to retire, and denying relief to those who had already retired during the interregnum, was held to be arbitrary. The Court applied the principle that a classification must rest on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the law, and held that the date-based exclusion had no such nexus where the legislative purpose was remedial. The Court also held that the objection of administrative chaos was overstated and that, where necessary, relief could be tailored by reinstatement, compensation, or creation of supernumerary posts. The exclusionary word in the impugned provisions was severed to remove the discrimination.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the retirees who had attained the age of 55 years between 28.02.1983 and 23.08.1984 was unconstitutional, and they were entitled to the benefit of the restored age of superannuation, subject to the reliefs moulded by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the exclusionary treatment succeeded, and the Court granted consequential relief by directing reinstatement or compensation, together with restoration of seniority and other attendant benefits as specified in the operative directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where legislation is enacted to remedy an acknowledged wrong, a cut-off date that excludes from relief the very class most affected by that wrong is arbitrary unless the State shows a rational nexus between the exclusion and the legislative object; such discriminatory limitation may be severed to preserve the beneficial part of the enactment.

---