https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462161 The SC held that Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 was not arbitrary under Article 14. Although revised pension was notionally payable from 1 January 2006, actual financial benefit was deferred to 1 January 2009 because the State had cited fiscal constraint and the burden of arrears. The Court accepted that financial implications are a relevant policy consideration and that a cut-off date for monetary benefits is not per se discriminatory when supported by rational grounds. The High Court erred in rejecting that justification and striking down the rule, so the challenge failed. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 May 2025 19:31:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462161 The SC held that Rule 3(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 was not arbitrary under Article 14. Although revised pension was notionally payable from 1 January 2006, actual financial benefit was deferred to 1 January 2009 because the State had cited fiscal constraint and the burden of arrears. The Court accepted that financial implications are a relevant policy consideration and that a cut-off date for monetary benefits is not per se discriminatory when supported by rational grounds. The High Court erred in rejecting that justification and striking down the rule, so the challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462161