2015 (7) TMI 1335 - SC - Indian Laws

Retired Lecturers Entitled to Revised Pensions: SC Upholds HC Ruling for Higher Pay Band Implementation Within 3 Months.

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Versus Mahendra Nath Sharma

The SC upheld the HC's decision, affirming that retired lecturers were entitled to revised pensions based on the higher pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with ... Pension - benefit of revision of the pay scale - Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales for Government College Teachers) Rules, 1988 - HELD THAT:- The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [1971 (5) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT] wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. It will be appropriate and apposite on the part of the employers to remember the same and ingeminate it time and again so that unnecessary litigation do not travel to the Court and the employers show a definite and correct attitude towards employees. We are compelled to say so as we find that the intention of the State Government from paragraph 5 of the circular/memorandum has been litigated at various stages to deny the benefits to the Respondents. It is the duty of the State Government to avoid unwarranted litigations and not to encourage any litigation for the sake of litigation. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of retired lecturers to revised pension based on revised pay scales.2. Interpretation of the circular/memorandum dated 12.09.2008 regarding pension revision.3. Applicability of UGC guidelines and Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.4. Comparison with similar cases from other states.5. Financial implications for the state government.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of Retired Lecturers to Revised Pension Based on Revised Pay Scales:The respondents, who retired prior to 01.01.2006, were granted the Lecturers (Selection Scale) on or before 01.01.1986 and had completed three years of service in the said pay-scale before 01.01.2006. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales for Government College Teachers) Rules, 1988 and 1999 revised their pay scales, and the respondents received revised pensions accordingly. The controversy arose when the Government of Rajasthan issued a circular/memorandum on 12.09.2008, which provided for the revision of pension/family pension for pre-01.09.2006 pensioners/family pensioners. The respondents claimed that their pension should be revised to reflect the pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000, as they had completed three years in the selection scale before 01.01.2006.2. Interpretation of the Circular/Memorandum Dated 12.09.2008 Regarding Pension Revision:Paragraph 5 of the circular/memorandum dated 12.09.2008 was central to the controversy. It stipulated that the consolidated pension (treated as final 'Basic Pension') as on 01.09.2006 for pre-01.09.2006 pensioners should not be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum pay of the post in the running pay band plus grade pay introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2006 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of the post from which the pensioner had retired. The respondents argued that this provision entitled them to the higher pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000, as they had completed the requisite three years of service in the selection scale.3. Applicability of UGC Guidelines and Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations:The Division Bench noted that the Sixth Pay Commission had recommended bifurcating the pay scales of Lecturers (Selection Scale) into two categories: those who had not completed three years of service in the existing pay scale as on 01.01.2006 and those who had. The respondents fell into the latter category and were thus entitled to the higher pay band. The UGC Regulations of 2010, which were applicable to teachers in active service, did not have retrospective effect and did not nullify the selection scale awarded under earlier provisions.4. Comparison with Similar Cases from Other States:The Division Bench referred to a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Satyapal Yadav and Anr., where a similar issue was adjudicated. The Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part-I Rules, 2009, which were similar to the Rajasthan circular/memorandum, were interpreted to grant the higher pay band to retired lecturers. This precedent was considered relevant to the present case, despite slight differences in language.5. Financial Implications for the State Government:The state argued that granting the higher pay band would impose a heavy financial burden. However, the respondents countered that only around 200-250 retired lecturers in the selection scale were alive, and the state could not use financial burden as a justification to deny their legitimate dues. The court emphasized that pension is a right, not a bounty, and that the state should avoid unnecessary litigation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, affirming that the respondents were entitled to the revised pension based on the higher pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000. The court dismissed the appeals, directing the state to extend the benefit within three months, failing which interest would accrue at 9% per annum. The judgment reinforced the principle that pension is a right and highlighted the state's duty to avoid unwarranted litigation.