A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court<\/b> comprising Justice Ashutosh Kumar <\/b>and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury<\/b> held that the classification among pensioners based on the date of retirement, when all retirees form a homogenous class and the pay revision is made effective from a particular date, is arbitrary and unreasonable. Further financial constraints cannot justify such discriminatory treatment.<\/p>\n
Background Facts <\/b><\/p>\n
The Assam Pay Commission, 2008 submitted its recommendations for revision of pay and pension. These recommendations were accepted by the Government of Assam and implemented with effect from 01.01.2006. However, the State Government decided not to grant arrears of pension and Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity to employees like retired officers, teachers who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009, citing financial constraints. Only notional benefits were extended to these employees despite acceptance and implementation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by this decision, the respondents filed a writ petition challenging the denial of full benefits under the Assam Pay Commission, 2008. The Single Judge held that all pensioners form a homogenous class and classification based on the date of retirement for extending pensionary benefits was impermissible, particularly when the recommendations were given effect from 01.01.2006. The State of Assam preferred an appeal against the judgment of Single judge but later withdrew the appeal to file a review petition. It was dismissed on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the review petition as well as the original order dated 28.04.2016, the State of Assam filed the intra-Court appeal.<\/p>\n
It was submitted by the appellant that the State has the power to fix a cut-off date for extending pensionary benefits. It was further contended by the State that financial constraint can be a valid ground for fixation of a cut-off date for the grant of the benefit of increased quantum of pay or other benefits. The appellant further submitted that financial constraints constitute a valid and reasonable ground for creating a classification based on a cut-off date, as recognized by the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. <\/p>\n
On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the decision of the State to deny arrears of pension to those who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009 was arbitrary and unconstitutional, as the recommendations of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008, were implemented with effect from 01.01.2006.
Findings of the Court<\/b><\/p>\n
It was observed by the court that the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008, was accepted and implemented with effect from 01.01.2006. It was observed by the court that there was no valid justification for creating two classes of pensioners i.e. those who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009, and those who retired after 31.03.2009, for the purpose of granting a revised pension. It was further observed that all the pensioners formed one class and are entitled to revision of their pensions in terms of the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008. <\/p>\n
The case of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur <\/b>was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that the classification as sought to be made by the State had no relation with the object and purpose of the grant of the benefit of revised pension.<\/p>\n
It was held by the court that the object and purpose of the revision is due to increase in cost of living and when all the pensioners formed a single class, there cannot be any separate classification amongst the homogenous group. Therefore, the actions of the authorities were rightly held by the Single Judge to be unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory.<\/p>\n
Further the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India<\/b> was also relied on upon by the court wherein it was held that a classification between pre and post cut-off date retirees was arbitrary, when both the classes formed a homogenous class. Hence, when all the retirees formed one homogenous class, the benefits must be extended equally.<\/p>\n
It was also observed by the court that the ratio in State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal would not apply to the case. The action of the State was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The judgment of the Single Judge directing extension of revised pension benefits to all retirees, was upheld by the court.<\/p>\n
With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeal filed by the State was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Case Name : <\/b>State Of Assam vs All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers And Employees Committee & Ors<\/b><\/p>\n
Case No. : <\/b>WA\/418\/2023<\/b>
Counsel<\/b> for the Petitioner : R Borpujari <\/b><\/p>\n
Counsel<\/b> for the Respondents : GA, Assam, M K Choudhury, P Bhardwaj, M Sarma, D. Borah<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A Division bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":41118,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[177],"tags":[31191,3721,79,31194,18,31196,31193,19,17,31192,234,235,31195],"class_list":{"0":"post-41117","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-personal-finance","8":"tag-arbitrarily","9":"tag-benefits","10":"tag-business","11":"tag-cut-off-date","12":"tag-eire","13":"tag-gauhati-hc","14":"tag-homogenous-class","15":"tag-ie","16":"tag-ireland","17":"tag-pensioner","18":"tag-personal-finance","19":"tag-personalfinance","20":"tag-revised-pension"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41117","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41117\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/41118"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}