Pensionary service and negative equality: autonomous body employment and an unsustainable decree could not support parity-based relief.

Service rendered in the Fish Farmers Development Agency was held not to qualify as pensionable service because the Agency was a registered society and autonomous body, not a State department, and the courts below found the employment to be under a non-pensionable establishment. The plea for parity with an earlier decree was also rejected because that decree was obtained without impleading the State, was unsustainable, and could not create a right through negative equality under Article 14. Concurrent factual findings were not shown to be perverse, and the denial of pensionary relief was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether service rendered in the Fish Farmers Development Agency could be counted as qualifying service for pension and retiral benefits; (ii) whether a benefit allegedly granted in another case could be claimed on the basis of equality when that earlier decree was found to be unsustainable and the State was not impleaded.

Issue (i): whether service rendered in the Fish Farmers Development Agency could be counted as qualifying service for pension and retiral benefits.

Analysis: The finding recorded below was that the Agency was a registered society and an autonomous body, not a department of the State. The employee's service there was treated as service under a non-pensionable establishment, and the courts below had already held that such service could not be added for pensionary computation. The concurrent factual finding on the nature of the employer and the character of the service was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The claim for counting the Agency service towards pension and retiral benefits was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether a benefit allegedly granted in another case could be claimed on the basis of equality when that earlier decree was found to be unsustainable and the State was not impleaded.

Analysis: A decree obtained without impleading the necessary party, namely the State, could not bind the State or furnish a lawful basis for claiming identical relief. Equality under Article 14 does not extend to perpetuating an illegality or a wrong order. A collusive or otherwise unsustainable decree cannot be used to create a right in favour of others on the theory of negative equality.

Conclusion: The plea based on discrimination and parity with the earlier decree was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no ground to disturb the concurrent findings denying pensionary relief, and the appeal failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Service rendered under an autonomous, non-governmental, non-pensionable body cannot be counted as qualifying service for State pension, and Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim parity with an illegal or collusive decree obtained without impleading the necessary party.

---