Past Government service for pension cannot be denied solely by retirement date; the classification was held unconstitutional.

Paragraph 7 of the 29 August 1984 Office Memorandum, which limited counting of past Government service for pension to employees retiring on or after the date of issue, was held to create an irrational classification between pensioners solely by retirement date. Because the scheme's object was to extend pensionary benefit by recognizing earlier Government service for combined service computation, the date-based restriction had no rational nexus with that object and was unconstitutional. The benefit was prospective in operation, but it could still take account of past service for qualifying service and was not impermissibly retrospective for that reason.

---

---

Issues: Whether paragraph 7 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.8.1984, limiting the benefit of counting past Government service for pension to employees retiring on or after the date of issue, was unconstitutional and could be applied to deny the benefit to the petitioner.

Analysis: The scheme introduced by the Office Memorandum was intended to extend pensionary benefit on the basis of combined service between the Central Government and autonomous bodies where a pension scheme was in force. The restriction confining the benefit to retirees after the date of issue created two classes of pensioners on the sole basis of the date of retirement, though the underlying service conditions and the nature of the benefit were the same. Such a distinction had no rational connection with the object of the policy, which was to avoid hardship and to recognize earlier Government service for pension computation. The benefit was prospective in the sense that it became claimable only from the date of the order, but it necessarily took account of past service for calculating qualifying service and did not become impermissibly retrospective for that reason.

Conclusion: Paragraph 7 could not validly be used to deny the benefit of counting past Government service to persons in the petitioner's position, and the restriction based on the date of retirement was unconstitutional.

---