Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
1. Tejinder Singh
State of Punjab and
2. Chain Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
3. Raghbir Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
4. Jagmohan Sharma
State of Punjab and another
5. Jaswant Singh Cheema and others
State of Punjab and another
6. Bhajan Singh Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Tejinder Singh Bhathal and others
State of Punjab and another
Chain Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
Raghbir Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
Jagmohan Sharma
State of Punjab and another
Jaswant Singh Cheema and others
State of Punjab and another
Bhajan Singh Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-7658-2015
Reserved on:11.08.2025
Pronounced on: 19.08.2025
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-15317-2015
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-10776-2015
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-10766-2015
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-10692-2015
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-10191-2015
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents
...Petitioners ...Petitioners ...Petitioners ...Petitioners ...Petitioners PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
7. Anchal Singh and others
State of Punjab
8 . Arjan Dass and another
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and others
9. Sukhwant Singh Bhalla
State of Punjab and another
10. Balkar Singh
State of Punjab and others
11. Ranjit Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
12. Kishor hand Shory and others
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
13. Manjeet Paul
State of Punjab and another
2
Anchal Singh and others
State of Punjab
Arjan Dass and another
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and others
Sukhwant Singh Bhalla
State of Punjab and another
Balkar Singh
State of Punjab and others
Ranjit Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
Kishor hand Shory and others
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
Manjeet Paul
State of Punjab and another
CWP-9321-2015
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondent
CWP-5079-2017
...Petitioners
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and others
...Respondents
CWP-25436-2017
...Petitioner
Versus
...Respondents
CWP-15584-2016
...Petitioner
Versus
...Respondents
CWP-12091-2017
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-5735-2021
...Petitioners
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CWP-32127-2019
...Petitioner
Versus
...Respondents
...Petitioners ...Petitioners ...Petitioner ...Petitioner ...Petitioners ...Petitioners ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Respondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
14. Ram Lal Chumber and others
State of Punjab and another
15.
Avtar Singh Sohal and others
State of Punjab and another
16. Madan Lal
State of Punjab and others
17. Subhash Chander Gupta and others
State of Punjab and another
18. Paramjit Singh
State of Punj
19. Dr Subhash Kaushal and others
State of Punjab and others
20. Raj Kumar Gupta
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
3
Ram Lal Chumber and others
State of Punjab and another
Avtar Singh Sohal and others
State of Punjab and another
State of Punjab and others
Subhash Chander Gupta and others
State of Punjab and another
Paramjit Singh
State of Punjab and others
Dr Subhash Kaushal and others
State of Punjab and others
Raj Kumar Gupta
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others CWP-32637-2019
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-26336-2016
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-6929-2017
...Petitioner
Versus
...Respondents CWP-14142-2017
..Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-24285-2016
...Petitioner
Versus
...Respondents CWP-20632-2018
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-11451-2025
...Petitioner
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents
...Petitioners ...Petitioners ...Petitioner ..Petitioners ...Petitioner ...Petitioners ...Petitioner PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
21. Naib Singh and others
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
22. Mehar Singh
Punjab State Power Corporation limited and others
23. Kuldip Singh
Punjab State Power Corporation limited and others
24. Satpal Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
25. Pitamber Dutt and others
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
26. D.S Bakshi and others
State of Punjab and others
27.
Baldev Raj Bhandari and others
State of Punjab and others
4
Naib Singh and others
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
Mehar Singh
Punjab State Power Corporation limited and others
Kuldip Singh
Punjab State Power Corporation limited and others
Satpal Singh and others
State of Punjab and another
Pitamber Dutt and others
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
D.S Bakshi and others
State of Punjab and others
Baldev Raj Bhandari and others
State of Punjab and others
CWP-7488-2022
...Petitioners
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CWP-34329-2019
...Petitioner
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation limited and others ...Respondents CWP-7590-2022
...Petitioner
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation limited and others ...Respondents CWP-6334-2017
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-14614-2019
...Petitioners
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CWP-18382-2016
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-29081-2017
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents
...Petitioners ...Petitioner ...Petitioner ...Petitioners ...Petitioners ...Petitioners ...Petitioners PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
28. Baldev Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
29. Bakshish Singh
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board Chandigarh and others
30. Chamkaur Singh
State of Punjab and others
31. Satwinder Singh and another
State of Punjab and others
CORAM:
Present:
5
Baldev Singh and others
State of Punjab and others
Bakshish Singh
Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board Chandigarh and others
Chamkaur Singh
State of Punjab and others
Satwinder Singh and another
State of Punjab and others
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate
and Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP No.5079 and 5735 of 2021. Ms. Anmol Thakur, Advocate
for Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP No.15584 of 2016. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.12091 of 2017,
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for Mr. Virender K. Shukla, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.6929 of 2017. CWP-2389-2025
Reserved on:12.08.2025
Pronounced on: 19.08.2025
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents CWP-12302-2025
...Petitioner
Versus Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board Chandigarh and others
...Respondents CWP-15497-2025
...Petitioner
Versus
...Respondents CWP-27052-2019
...Petitioners
Versus
...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP No.5079 and 5735 of 2021. for Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate the petitioner(s) in CWP No.15584 of 2016. for the petitioner in CWP No.12091 of 2017, for Mr. Virender K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.6929 of 2017. ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioner ...Petitioners PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP
6
Mr. Kusum Raj, Advocate
for Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.7658 of 2015. Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP No.7590 and 7488 of 2022
and in CWP Nos.14614 and 34329 of 2019. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.10766 of 2015. Mr. Pankaj Bains, Advocate
for Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP No.20632 of 2018
and in CWP No.29081 of 2017. Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Ratik Chatrath Kapur,
for the respondent – PSPCL in CWP No.14614 of 2019
and in CWP Nos.7488 and 7590 of 2022. Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate
for the respondents in CWP No.26336 of 2016. Mr. Sumit Kalyan, Advocate
for the respondents in CWP No.11451 of 202
Mr. Sehajbir Singh, Advocate
for the respondent – PSPCL in CWP No.5735 of 2021. Mr.
Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent
Nos.7658, 9321, 10191, 10692, 10766, 10776 of 20
Nos.24285-2016, 6334-2017 & 34329
*** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
This common order shall dispose of all the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP for Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.7658 of 2015. for the petitioner(s) in CWP No.7590 and 7488 of 2022 and in CWP Nos.14614 and 34329 of 2019. petitioner in CWP No.10766 of 2015. for Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP No.20632 of 2018 and in CWP No.29081 of 2017. Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ratik Chatrath Kapur, Advocate PSPCL in CWP No.14614 of 2019 and in CWP Nos.7488 and 7590 of 2022. for the respondents in CWP No.26336 of 2016. for the respondents in CWP No.11451 of 2025. PSPCL in CWP No.5735 of 2021. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent-PSPCL in CWP Nos.7658, 9321, 10191, 10692, 10766, 10776 of 2015, CWP 2017 & 34329-2019. This common order shall dispose of all the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-7658 of 2015. PSPCL in CWP This common order shall dispose of all the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2.
227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ, direction or order quashing/setting aside of the following: Para- No.1- recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission regarding pension and other retiral benefits has been fixed at 01.12.2011; Order dated 06.01.2015 issued by Respondent No.1 P-9) whereby the 01.12.2011; Letter dated 05.02.2015 issued by Respondent No.2 Director (Annexure P 06.01.2015(Annexure P all other orders passed by the respondents vide which the benefits of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission have been withheld from the petitioner(s). It is further prayed that writ in the nature of issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefits of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, as mentioned in Notification dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P retired between 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2011.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3.
were employees of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, now reconstituted as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter 7
The present petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ, direction or order quashing/setting aside of the following: -3 of the Notification dated 15.12.2011 issued by the Respondent -State (Annexure P-6), vide which the date for implementation of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission regarding pension and other retiral benefits has been fixed at 01.12.2011;
Order dated 06.01.2015 issued by Respondent No.1 9) whereby the date of implementation has been retained to be 01.12.2011; Letter dated 05.02.2015 issued by Respondent No.2 Director-cum-Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (Annexure P-10) whereby the decision in
order dated 06.01.2015(Annexure P-9) has been reiterated; and all other orders passed by the respondents vide which the benefits of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission have been withheld from the petitioner(s). It is further prayed that writ in the nature of , directing the respondents to grant the benefits of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, as mentioned in Notification dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P retired between 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2011.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that the petitioners were employees of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, now reconstituted as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ, direction or order 3 of the Notification dated 15.12.2011 issued by the Respondent 6), vide which the date for implementation of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission regarding pension and other retiral benefits has been fixed at 01.12.2011;
Order dated 06.01.2015 issued by Respondent No.1-State (Annexure date of implementation has been retained to be Letter dated 05.02.2015 issued by Respondent No.2- Managing Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited 10) whereby the decision in
order dated 9) has been reiterated; and all other orders passed by the respondents vide which the benefits of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission have been withheld from the petitioner(s). It is further prayed that writ in the nature of mandamus may be , directing the respondents to grant the benefits of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, as mentioned in Notification dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-6) to the petitioners who have retired between 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2011. Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that the petitioners were employees of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, now reconstituted as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter
petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ, direction or order 3 of the Notification dated 15.12.2011 issued by the Respondent 6), vide which the date for implementation of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission regarding pension and State (Annexure date of implementation has been retained to be Managing Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited 10) whereby the decision in
order dated all other orders passed by the respondents vide which the benefits of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission have been withheld from the may be , directing the respondents to grant the benefits of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, as mentioned in 6) to the petitioners who have Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that the petitioners were employees of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, now reconstituted as Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
‘Corporation’) years of service to respondent No.2 and are currently retired. The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted by the State of Punjab with effect from 1.01.2006 and implemented by notifying the Punjab Civil Services 2009’) on 27.05.2009. The Rules of 2009 came into force on 01.01.2006.The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were adopted by the State of Punjab as discernible from Notification dated 15.12.2011 (An years of service to qualify for pension is dispensed with. It further states that once an employee attains a minimum qualifying service of 25 years, he/she shall be entitled to a pension equal to received during the last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to him/her. However, the abovementioned benefits were to be implemented with effect from 01.12.2011 as mentioned in Para 15.12.2011 01.12.2011, they were denied the said benefits. 4. moved this Court and vide order dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P Writ Petition therein, a Coordinate bench quashed Para 3 of the Notification dated 15.12.2011 and observed that it could not be proved that the cut 01.12.2011 was the result of a conscious decision constraints. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent against the order 8
‘Corporation’)-respondent no. 2. The petition years of service to respondent No.2 and are currently retired. The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted by the State of Punjab with effect from 1.01.2006 and implemented by notifying the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 2009’) on 27.05.2009. The Rules of 2009 came into force on 01.01.2006.The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were adopted by the State of Punjab as discernible from Notification dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-6) which clearly states that the prerequisite of 33 years of service to qualify for pension is dispensed with.
It further states that once an employee attains a minimum qualifying service of 25 years, he/she shall be entitled to a pension equal to 50% of the basic pay or emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to him/her. However, the abovementioned benefits were to be implemented with effect from 01.12.2011 as mentioned in Para 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-6). Since the petitioners had retired before 01.12.2011, they were denied the said benefits. Previously, certain similarly situated retired employees had moved this Court and vide order dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P Writ Petition No. 11373 of 2012, while granting relief to the petitioners therein, a Coordinate bench quashed Para 3 of the Notification dated 15.12.2011 and observed that it could not be proved that the cut 01.12.2011 was the result of a conscious decision constraints. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent against the order dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P respondent no. 2. The petitioners have rendered over 25 years of service to respondent No.2 and are currently retired. The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted by the State of Punjab with effect from 1.01.2006 and implemented by notifying the (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 2009’) on 27.05.2009. The Rules of 2009 came into force on 01.01.2006.The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were adopted by the State of Punjab as discernible from Notification dated 6) which clearly states that the prerequisite of 33 years of service to qualify for pension is dispensed with. It further states that once an employee attains a minimum qualifying service of 25 years, he/she 50% of the basic pay or emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to him/her. However, the abovementioned benefits were to be implemented with effect from 01.12.2011 as mentioned in Para-3 of the Notification dated 6). Since the petitioners had retired before 01.12.2011, they were denied the said benefits.
Previously, certain similarly situated retired employees had moved this Court and vide order dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P-7) in Civil , while granting relief to the petitioners therein, a Coordinate bench quashed Para 3 of the Notification dated 15.12.2011 and observed that it could not be proved that the cut-off date of 01.12.2011 was the result of a conscious decision based on financial constraints. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-State preferred an appeal dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P-7) by means of Letters
ers have rendered over 25 years of service to respondent No.2 and are currently retired. The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted by the State of Punjab with effect from 1.01.2006 and implemented by notifying the (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 2009’) on 27.05.2009. The Rules of 2009 came into force on 01.01.2006.The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were adopted by the State of Punjab as discernible from Notification dated 6) which clearly states that the prerequisite of 33 years of service to qualify for pension is dispensed with. It further states that once an employee attains a minimum qualifying service of 25 years, he/she 50% of the basic pay or emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to him/her. However, the abovementioned benefits were to be implemented with effect 3 of the Notification dated 6). Since the petitioners had retired before Previously, certain similarly situated retired employees had Civil , while granting relief to the petitioners therein, a Coordinate bench quashed Para 3 of the Notification dated off date of based on financial State preferred an appeal Letters PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 2013 (Annexure P take a fresh decision with respect to the cut
5.
Thereafter, in compliance with the order dated on 09.07.2014 (Annexure P (Annexure P benefits of the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission as changing the same to 01.01.2006, would inflict the State with a considerable financial burden. Following the responde dated 05.02.2015 (Annexure P
01.12.2011. 6. Subsequently, aggrieved retired employees moved this Court by means of Civil Writ Petition No.7239 of 2015 06.01.2015(Annexure P
order dated 18.12.2019. The order dated 18.12.2019 was challenged by the respondent- which is currently pendin
CONTENTIONS
7. Learned counsel of the petitioner contends that vide its order dated 06.01.2015(Annexure P date as 01.12.2011, which is discriminatory against persons who r from service before the said date. The respondents have arrived at this decision in a mechanical manner, without attempting to present an intelligible differentia, which is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, as enshrined in Arti 9
Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 2013 wherein, vide order dated on 09.07.2014 (Annexure P-8), a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to take a fresh decision with respect to the cut-
5. Thereafter, in compliance with the order dated on 09.07.2014 (Annexure P-8), the respondent-State, vide (Annexure P-9), decided to retain 01.12.2011 as the cut benefits of the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission as changing the same to 01.01.2006, would inflict the State with a considerable financial burden. Following the respondent-State, respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 05.02.2015 (Annexure P-10) stating the cut
01.12.2011. Subsequently, aggrieved retired employees moved this Court by Civil Writ Petition No.7239 of 2015 06.01.2015(Annexure P-9) which resulted in quashing of the same vide
order dated 18.12.2019. The order dated 18.12.2019 was challenged by the -State by means of Letters Patent Appeal No.691 of 2020 which is currently pending consideration.
CONTENTIONS
7. Learned counsel of the petitioner contends that vide its order dated 06.01.2015(Annexure P-9), the respondent- date as 01.12.2011, which is discriminatory against persons who r from service before the said date. The respondents have arrived at this decision in a mechanical manner, without attempting to present an intelligible differentia, which is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, as enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of wherein, vide order dated on 09.07.2014 Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to -off date.
5. Thereafter, in compliance with the order dated on 09.07.2014 State, vide order dated 06.01.201 9), decided to retain 01.12.2011 as the cut-off days for granting benefits of the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission as changing the same to 01.01.2006, would inflict the State with a considerable financial State, respondent No.2 issued a letter 10) stating the cut-off date shall remain to be Subsequently, aggrieved retired employees moved this Court by Civil Writ Petition No.7239 of 2015, challenging the order dated 9) which resulted in quashing of the same vide
order dated 18.12.2019. The order dated 18.12.2019 was challenged by the Letters Patent Appeal No.691 of 2020 g consideration.
7. Learned counsel of the petitioner contends that vide its order dated -State arbitrarily fixed the cut-off date as 01.12.2011, which is discriminatory against persons who retired from service before the said date. The respondents have arrived at this decision in a mechanical manner, without attempting to present an intelligible differentia, which is violative of the fundamental rights of the cles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
wherein, vide order dated on 09.07.2014 Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to
5. Thereafter, in compliance with the order dated on 09.07.2014
order dated 06.01.2015 off days for granting benefits of the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission as changing the same to 01.01.2006, would inflict the State with a considerable financial State, respondent No.2 issued a letter off date shall remain to be Subsequently, aggrieved retired employees moved this Court by nging the order dated 9) which resulted in quashing of the same vide
order dated 18.12.2019. The order dated 18.12.2019 was challenged by the Letters Patent Appeal No.691 of 2020,
7. Learned counsel of the petitioner contends that vide its order dated off etired from service before the said date. The respondents have arrived at this decision in a mechanical manner, without attempting to present an intelligible differentia, which is violative of the fundamental rights of the cles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
India. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, the following was held:
“42. pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose o revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational principle? some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. We have set underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date simultaneously those who retired prior to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to Government servants then those who retired earlier cannot be worse off then those who retire later. Theref classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be dis take two persons, one retired just a day prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in the same pay bracket the average emolument was the same and both had put in equal number of years of service. How does a fortu day earlier or a day later will permit totally unequal treatment in the matter of pension. One retiring a day earlier will have to be subject to ceiling of Rs. 8,100/ 36 month .p.a. and average emolument will be computed on the basis of last ten months' average.
The artificial division stares into face and is unrelated to any principle and whatever principle, if there absolutely no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counter productive and runs counter to the whole gamu The equal treatment guaranteed in Article 14 is wholly violated in as 10
India. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, wherein, speaking through Justice D.A. Desai, e following was held:
“42. If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose o revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational principle? The classification has to be based, as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. We have set underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date simultaneously those who retired prior to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to Government servants then those who retired earlier cannot be worse off then those who retire later.
Theref classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be dis take two persons, one retired just a day prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in the same pay bracket the average emolument was the same and both had put in equal number of years of service. How does a fortu day earlier or a day later will permit totally unequal treatment in the matter of pension. One retiring a day earlier will have to be subject to ceiling of Rs. 8,100/-.p.a. and average emolument to be worked out on 36 months' salary while the other will have a ceiling of Rs. 12,000/ .p.a. and average emolument will be computed on the basis of last ten months' average. The artificial division stares into face and is unrelated to any principle and whatever principle, if there absolutely no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counter productive and runs counter to the whole gamu The equal treatment guaranteed in Article 14 is wholly violated in as India.
Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara vs. Union wherein, speaking through Justice D.A. Desai, If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose o revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational The classification has to be based, as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to Government servants then those who retired earlier cannot be worse off then those who retire later. Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory. To illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in the same pay bracket the average emolument was the same and both had put in equal number of years of service. How does a fortuitous circumstance of retiring a day earlier or a day later will permit totally unequal treatment in the matter of pension.
One retiring a day earlier will have to be subject to .p.a. and average emolument to be worked out on s' salary while the other will have a ceiling of Rs. 12,000/ .p.a. and average emolument will be computed on the basis of last ten months' average. The artificial division stares into face and is unrelated to any principle and whatever principle, if there be any, has absolutely no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counter productive and runs counter to the whole gamut of pension scheme. The equal treatment guaranteed in Article 14 is wholly violated in as
India. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of a D.S. Nakara vs. Union wherein, speaking through Justice D.A. Desai, If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational The classification has to be based, as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus out the objects underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who denying the same to those who retired prior to that date.
If the liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to Government servants then those who retired earlier cannot be worse ore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons To illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in the same pay bracket the average emolument was the same and both had put in equal number itous circumstance of retiring a day earlier or a day later will permit totally unequal treatment in the matter of pension. One retiring a day earlier will have to be subject to .p.a. and average emolument to be worked out on s' salary while the other will have a ceiling of Rs. 12,000/- .p.a. and average emolument will be computed on the basis of last ten months' average. The artificial division stares into face and is be any, has absolutely no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counter t of pension scheme. The equal treatment guaranteed in Article 14 is wholly violated in as PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
much as the pension rules being statutory in character, since the specified date the rules accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter o hours' difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled. Therefore the classification does not stand the test of Article 14. 43. not find a single acceptable or persuasive reason for this division. This arbitrary action violated the guarantee of Article 14. (emphasis added)
8. by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pensioners Association by its Secretary vs. State of Manipur 2019 SCC Online SC 845 reiterated. Speaking through Justice M.R. Shah, the following
“8.
that there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz., one who retired pre of grant of revis nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form a one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all eq At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a classification. However, a very classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The te summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. 11
much as the pension rules being statutory in character, since the specified date the rules accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. A 48 hours' difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled. Therefore the classification does not stand the test of Article 14. Further the classification is wholly arbitrary because we do not find a single acceptable or persuasive reason for this division. This arbitrary action violated the guarantee of Article 14. (emphasis added)
Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment rendered Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pensioners Association by its Secretary vs. State of Manipur 2019 SCC Online SC 845, wherein, the decision in reiterated. Speaking through Justice M.R. Shah, the following
Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz., one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post of grant of revised pension. In our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form a one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a classification. However, a very classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must n Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cut much as the pension rules being statutory in character, since the specified date the rules accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. A 48 hours' difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled. Therefore the classification does not stand the test of Article 14. s wholly arbitrary because we do not find a single acceptable or persuasive reason for this division. This arbitrary action violated the guarantee of Article 14.
Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment rendered Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary vs. State of Manipur 2019 SCC , wherein, the decision in D.S. Nakara (supra) was reiterated. Speaking through Justice M.R. Shah, the following was opined: Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz., one who 1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form a one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of uality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. However, a very classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective st for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the Therefore, whenever a cut-off date (as
much as the pension rules being statutory in character, since the specified date the rules accord differential and discriminatory f commutation of pension. A 48 hours' difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled. Therefore the s wholly arbitrary because we do not find a single acceptable or persuasive reason for this division. ”
Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment rendered All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary vs. State of Manipur 2019 SCC was Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz., one who 1996, for the purpose view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form a one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of uality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It valid classification. However, a very classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over ecessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective st for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the off date (as PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
in the presen for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied. In the present case, the classification in questio reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. pensioners form a single class and t for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated per of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit. added)
9. the Corporation is well within its right to prescribe a cut view the financial implications involved.
The cut 01.12.2011 since modifying the same to 01.01.2 financial liability to the tune of Rs 168.53 crores upto 30.06.2015, besides causing a recurring additional burden of Rs 1.72 crores. The relevant financial details in this regard have been duly mentioned in the written statement fi
10. respondent No.2 has submitted an additional affidavit detailing the year wise breakup of those employees who have retired during the period 01.01.2006 t years, but were not granted full pension. Referring to the same, learned counsel submits that the respondent loss of Rs. 6938.99 crores in the year 2017 12
in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied. In the present case, the classification in questio reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. pensioners form a single class and t for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cut of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit. added)
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Corporation is well within its right to prescribe a cut view the financial implications involved. The cut 01.12.2011 since modifying the same to 01.01.2 financial liability to the tune of Rs 168.53 crores upto 30.06.2015, besides causing a recurring additional burden of Rs 1.72 crores. The relevant financial details in this regard have been duly mentioned in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.2.
Furthermore, in compliance with the order dated 20.12.2019, respondent No.2 has submitted an additional affidavit detailing the year wise breakup of those employees who have retired during the period 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2011, had qualified service between 25 years and 33 years, but were not granted full pension. Referring to the same, learned counsel submits that the respondent-corporation have incurred a cumulative loss of Rs. 6938.99 crores in the year 2017 t controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied. In the present case, the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose sons, a cut-off date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit.” (emphasis , learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Corporation is well within its right to prescribe a cut-off date, keeping in view the financial implications involved. The cut-off date was fixed at 01.12.2011 since modifying the same to 01.01.2006 would create a huge financial liability to the tune of Rs 168.53 crores upto 30.06.2015, besides causing a recurring additional burden of Rs 1.72 crores. The relevant financial details in this regard have been duly mentioned in the written led on behalf of respondent No.2.
Furthermore, in compliance with the order dated 20.12.2019, respondent No.2 has submitted an additional affidavit detailing the year wise breakup of those employees who have retired during the period o 30.11.2011, had qualified service between 25 years and 33 years, but were not granted full pension. Referring to the same, learned corporation have incurred a cumulative loss of Rs. 6938.99 crores in the year 2017-18. To support his case, learned
t controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be n has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for All the herefore such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose off date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly (emphasis , learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that off date, keeping in off date was fixed at 006 would create a huge financial liability to the tune of Rs 168.53 crores upto 30.06.2015, besides causing a recurring additional burden of Rs 1.72 crores. The relevant financial details in this regard have been duly mentioned in the written Furthermore, in compliance with the order dated 20.12.2019, respondent No.2 has submitted an additional affidavit detailing the year- wise breakup of those employees who have retired during the period o 30.11.2011, had qualified service between 25 years and 33 years, but were not granted full pension. Referring to the same, learned corporation have incurred a cumulative To support his case, learned PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered by a two the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goyal (2005) 6 SCC 754 Srikrishna, the follo
“32.
The importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including in the following two cases. In State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Amritlal Gandhi & far as to note that:
33. More recently, in Veerasamy (supra), this Court observed that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introdu off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis. In that case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from service before 1.7.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that th treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed separate classes. 34. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Boota Singh and Anr., ("Boota Singh") after considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. Nakara (supra) to K.L. R Nakara (supra) should not be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. 35. In us was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh (supra) were reiterated, and it was held that for the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific fut be considered arbitrary. 36. In Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors., a Division Bench of this Court said, 13
counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered by a two the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Goyal (2005) 6 SCC 754, wherein, speaking through Justice B.N. Srikrishna, the following was held:
“32. The importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including in the following two cases. In State of Rajasthan and Anr.
v. Amritlal Gandhi & far as to note that:
"Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut arbitrarily or without any reason in error in allowing the writ petitions and substituting the date of 1.1.1986 for 1.1.1990"
33. More recently, in Veerasamy (supra), this Court observed that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introdu off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis. In that case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from service before 1.7.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that th treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed separate classes. 34. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Boota Singh and Anr., ("Boota Singh") after considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. Nakara (supra) to K.L. Rathee v. Union of India, it was held that D.S. Nakara (supra) should not be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. 35. In State of Punjab and Anr. v. J. us was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh (supra) were reiterated, and it was held that for the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered arbitrary. 36. In Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors., a Division Bench of this Court said, counsel places reliance on the judgment rendered by a two-Judge bench of f Punjab and others vs. Amar Nath wherein, speaking through Justice B.N.
“32. The importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including in the following two cases. In State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Amritlal Gandhi & Ors., this Court went so as Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut-off date.
In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ petitions and substituting the date
33. More recently, in Veerasamy (supra), this Court observed that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis. In that case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from service before 1.7.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed
34. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Boota Singh and Anr., ("Boota Singh") after considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. athee v. Union of India, it was held that D.S. Nakara (supra) should not be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. L. Gupta and Ors., where one of us was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh (supra) were reiterated, and it was held that for the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription ure date for conferment of additional benefit, could not
36. In Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors., a Division Bench of this Court said,
Judge bench of vs. Amar Nath wherein, speaking through Justice B.N.
“32. The importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including in the following two cases. In State of Ors., this Court went so as Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective off date. In off date was fixed The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ petitions and substituting the date
33.
More recently, in Veerasamy (supra), this Court observed that, cing a cut- off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis. In that case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from service before 1.7.1986, and those who were in ey could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed
34. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Boota Singh and Anr., ("Boota Singh") after considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. athee v. Union of India, it was held that D.S. Nakara (supra) should not be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the L. Gupta and Ors., where one of us was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh (supra) were reiterated, and it was held that for the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription ure date for conferment of additional benefit, could not
36. In Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors., a Division Bench of this Court said, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
even for the purpose of effecting promotion, date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it offend Article 14 of the Constitution to be endured by a person as a result did not ma violative of Article 14. 37. In the instant case before us, the cut 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. Consequently, we reject the contention that the fixing of the cut date was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14.”
11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents makes a reference to the judgment rendered by a two Supreme Court in (2008) 14 SCC 702
“5.
cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 754). 6. No doubt in D.S. Nakara & 305 this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the demand of pension. considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara's Case (supra), as obser of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (supra)
7. There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed. These conside considerations. The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at th joints in this connection 14
even for the purpose of effecting promotion, date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it offend Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Court held that possible hardship to be endured by a person as a result did not ma violative of Article 14. 37. In the instant case before us, the cut 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. Consequently, we reject the contention that the fixing of the cut ate was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14.” (emphasis supplied)
11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents makes a reference to the judgment rendered by a two eme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Subbarayudu.
(2008) 14 SCC 702 wherein the following was opined: In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the nomic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere th the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. (See State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 754). 6. No doubt in D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India 1983(1) SCC 305 this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara's Case (supra), as observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (supra) There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at th joints in this connection. even for the purpose of effecting promotion, the fixing of a cut-off date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it offend Article 14 . Moreover, the Court held that possible hardship to be endured by a person as a result did not make cut-off dates
37.
In the instant case before us, the cut-off date has been fixed as 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. Consequently, we reject the contention that the fixing of the cut-off ate was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it (emphasis supplied)
11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents makes a reference to the judgment rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Subbarayudu. wherein the following was opined: In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the nomic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere th the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory (See State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. vs. Union of India 1983(1) SCC 305 this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara's Case ved in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (supra). There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed. rations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at th
off date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it offend Article 14 .
Moreover, the Court held that possible hardship off dates off date has been fixed as 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. off ate was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it
11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents makes a Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Subbarayudu. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the nomic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere th the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory (See State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. vs. Union of India 1983(1) SCC 305 this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara's Case ved in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed. rations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
8.
In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by totally capricious or whimsical) Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank (2) SCC 76 (vide para 31), University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter affidavit of the Government o particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.”
12. Further reliance is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SCC 705 and While holding that the State is well within its right to prescribe a cut for implementing grant of better and higher pensionary benefits, a two bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in speaking through Justice J.S. K
“75. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue canvassed, and having gone through the judgments cited, we are of the considered view, that date, for extending better the financial health of the employer. A cut legitimately be prescribed for extending pensionary benefits, if the funds available cannot assuage the liability, to all the existing pensioners. within the authority of the State Government, in exercise of its administrative powers (which it exercised, by issuing the impugned repeal notification dated 2.12.2004) to fix a cut continuing the right to receive pension in some, and depriving some others of the same.
15
In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by the Government, (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical) vide State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76 (vide para 31), University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.” (emphasis added)
12. Further reliance is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Tripura vs. Anjana Bhattacharjee and State of HP vs. Rajesh Chander Sood, (2016) 10 SCC 77 While holding that the State is well within its right to prescribe a cut for implementing grant of better and higher pensionary benefits, a two bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in speaking through Justice J.S. Khehar, the following was observed:
“75. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue canvassed, and having gone through the judgments cited, we are of the considered view, that this Court has repeatedly upheld a cut date, for extending better and higher pensionary benefits, based on the financial health of the employer. A cut legitimately be prescribed for extending pensionary benefits, if the funds available cannot assuage the liability, to all the existing pensioners.
We are therefore satisfied to conclude, that it is well within the authority of the State Government, in exercise of its administrative powers (which it exercised, by issuing the impugned repeal notification dated 2.12.2004) to fix a cut inuing the right to receive pension in some, and depriving some others of the same. This right was unquestionably exercised by the In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the the Government, (unless it is shown to be vide State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76 (vide para 31), University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter r the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous
12. Further reliance is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Anjana Bhattacharjee (2022) 19 . Rajesh Chander Sood, (2016) 10 SCC 77 While holding that the State is well within its right to prescribe a cut-off date for implementing grant of better and higher pensionary benefits, a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Chander Sood(supra) hehar, the following was observed:
“75. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue canvassed, and having gone through the judgments cited, we are of this Court has repeatedly upheld a cut-off and higher pensionary benefits, based on the financial health of the employer.
A cut-off date can therefore legitimately be prescribed for extending pensionary benefits, if the funds available cannot assuage the liability, to all the existing We are therefore satisfied to conclude, that it is well within the authority of the State Government, in exercise of its administrative powers (which it exercised, by issuing the impugned repeal notification dated 2.12.2004) to fix a cut-off date, for inuing the right to receive pension in some, and depriving some This right was unquestionably exercised by the
In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the the Government, (unless it is shown to be vide State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76 (vide para 31), University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter r the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous
12. Further reliance is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble (2022) 19 . Rajesh Chander Sood, (2016) 10 SCC 77. off date Judge Rajesh Chander Sood(supra),
“75.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue canvassed, and having gone through the judgments cited, we are of off and higher pensionary benefits, based on off date can therefore legitimately be prescribed for extending pensionary benefits, if the funds available cannot assuage the liability, to all the existing We are therefore satisfied to conclude, that it is well within the authority of the State Government, in exercise of its administrative powers (which it exercised, by issuing the impugned off date, for inuing the right to receive pension in some, and depriving some This right was unquestionably exercised by the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
State Government, as determined by this Court, in the R.R. Verma case (supra), wherein this Court held, that the Government w with the inherent power to review. And that the Government was free to alter its earlier administrative decisions and policy. Surely, this is what the State Government has done in the present controversy. But this Court in the above mentioned jud exercise of such power by the Government. In that, the exercise of such power, should be in consonance with all legal and statutory obligations.”
Chander Sood (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradesh, 2025 SCC (Online) SC 792 OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, the following issues arise for the
consideration of this Court: i. Whether respondent No.2, a statutory corporation, can deviate from the recommendatio own cut ii. Whether the present petition, being the second petition challenging the cut Commission, is maintainable or challenged the order dated 09.07.2014(Annexure P the Division Bench of this Court in 1857 of 2013
14. The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) is a statutory body that was formed on 01.2.1959, under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Vide 16
State Government, as determined by this Court, in the R.R. Verma case (supra), wherein this Court held, that the Government w with the inherent power to review. And that the Government was free to alter its earlier administrative decisions and policy. Surely, this is what the State Government has done in the present controversy. But this Court in the above mentioned jud exercise of such power by the Government. In that, the exercise of such power, should be in consonance with all legal and statutory obligations.” (emphasis supplied)
Learned counsel also submits that the judgment in ander Sood (supra) was also upheld by a three Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025 SCC (Online) SC 792.
OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, the following issues arise for the
consideration of this Court: Whether respondent No.2, a statutory corporation, can deviate from the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission and set its own cut-off date based on its financial health? Whether the present petition, being the second petition challenging the cut-off date of 01.12.2011 for implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission, is maintainable or challenged the order dated 09.07.2014(Annexure P the Division Bench of this Court in 1857 of 2013?
14. The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) is a statutory body that ed on 01.2.1959, under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Vide State Government, as determined by this Court, in the R.R. Verma case (supra), wherein this Court held, that the Government was vested with the inherent power to review. And that the Government was free to alter its earlier administrative decisions and policy. Surely, this is what the State Government has done in the present controversy. But this Court in the above mentioned judgment, placed a rider on the exercise of such power by the Government. In that, the exercise of such power, should be in consonance with all legal and statutory
Learned counsel also submits that the judgment in Rajesh was also upheld by a three-Judge Bench of the Satish Chander Sharma vs. State of Himachal Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, the following issues arise for the Whether respondent No.2, a statutory corporation, can deviate ns of the Fifth Pay Commission and set its off date based on its financial health? Whether the present petition, being the second petition challenging off date of 01.12.2011 for implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission, is maintainable or should the petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.07.2014(Annexure P-8) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patents Appeal No.
14. The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) is a statutory body that ed on 01.2.1959, under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Vide
State Government, as determined by this Court, in the R.R. Verma as vested with the inherent power to review. And that the Government was free to alter its earlier administrative decisions and policy. Surely, this is what the State Government has done in the present controversy. But gment, placed a rider on the exercise of such power by the Government. In that, the exercise of such power, should be in consonance with all legal and statutory Rajesh Judge Bench of the Satish Chander Sharma vs. State of Himachal Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, the following issues arise for the Whether respondent No.2, a statutory corporation, can deviate ns of the Fifth Pay Commission and set its Whether the present petition, being the second petition challenging off date of 01.12.2011 for implementation of the Fifth Pay should the petitioners have 8) passed by Letters Patents Appeal No.
14. The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) is a statutory body that ed on 01.2.1959, under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Vide PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Notification No 1/9/08 Punjab unbundled the PSEB into two companies Corporation Ltd. and Punjab State Transmission Corporatio admittedly, the respondent
15. A t & MD, Kerala SRTC v categorically held that an autonomous of framing its own rules and regulations, is entitled to decide the matter of implementation of policies that would impact its financial health. Speaking through Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, the following was held:
“18.
We are not in a position to endorse this reasoning or conclusion of the High Court. established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It can regulate the service of its employees by making appropriate regulat entitled to take note of its financial health in considering whether a particular recommendation for enhanced pay or pension in respect of Government employees should be adopted by it and if it adopted by it, from what point of time subject to any direction that may be issued by the State Government in terms of Section 34 of the Act. xxx
23. Even before us, also, it has been clearly pleaded by KSRTC that its financial position is unsound. In fact, the High Court has also noticed it. Corporation like KSRTC is certainly relevant when the C takes a decision as to whether it should implement a recommendation for enhanced emoluments and pension. find from the relevant aspects brought out that the financial position of KSRTC is not sound, we are of the view that the decision the State Government not to implement, here and now, the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission for KSRTC and the decision based on it by KSRTC are fully justified. Certainly, the decision cannot be said to be vitiated by any extraneous consi 17
Notification No 1/9/08-EB (PR) 196, dated 16.04.2010, the Government of Punjab unbundled the PSEB into two companies Corporation Ltd. and Punjab State Transmission Corporatio admittedly, the respondent-Corporation is a statutory body. . A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Su , Kerala SRTC vs. K.O. Varghese and o categorically held that an autonomous instrumentality of the State, capable of framing its own rules and regulations, is entitled to decide the matter of implementation of policies that would impact its financial health. Speaking through Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, the following was held:
8. We are not in a position to endorse this reasoning or conclusion of the High Court. KSRTC is an autonomous Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It can regulate the service of its employees by making appropriate regulations in that behalf.
Until such regulations are framed, it is entitled to take note of its financial health in considering whether a particular recommendation for enhanced pay or pension in respect of Government employees should be adopted by it and if it adopted by it, from what point of time subject to any direction that may be issued by the State Government in terms of Section 34 of the Act. xxx
23. Even before us, also, it has been clearly pleaded by KSRTC that its financial position is unsound. In fact, the High Court has also noticed it. This Court has held that the financial position of a Corporation like KSRTC is certainly relevant when the C takes a decision as to whether it should implement a recommendation for enhanced emoluments and pension. find from the relevant aspects brought out that the financial position of KSRTC is not sound, we are of the view that the decision the State Government not to implement, here and now, the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission for KSRTC and the decision based on it by KSRTC are fully justified. Certainly, the decision cannot be said to be vitiated by any extraneous consi EB (PR) 196, dated 16.04.2010, the Government of Punjab unbundled the PSEB into two companies- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Punjab State Transmission Corporation Ltd. Thus, Corporation is a statutory body. Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman . Varghese and others (2007) 8 SCC 231, has instrumentality of the State, capable of framing its own rules and regulations, is entitled to decide the matter of implementation of policies that would impact its financial health. Speaking through Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, the following was held:
8. We are not in a position to endorse this reasoning or conclusion KSRTC is an autonomous Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It can regulate the service of its employees by making appropriate ions in that behalf.
Until such regulations are framed, it is entitled to take note of its financial health in considering whether a particular recommendation for enhanced pay or pension in respect of Government employees should be adopted by it and if it is to adopted by it, from what point of time. This, of course, would be subject to any direction that may be issued by the State Government in
xxx
23. Even before us, also, it has been clearly pleaded by KSRTC that its financial position is unsound. In fact, the High Court has also This Court has held that the financial position of a Corporation like KSRTC is certainly relevant when the Corporation takes a decision as to whether it should implement a recommendation for enhanced emoluments and pension. Since we find from the relevant aspects brought out that the financial position of KSRTC is not sound, we are of the view that the decision taken by the State Government not to implement, here and now, the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission for KSRTC and the decision based on it by KSRTC are fully justified. Certainly, the decision cannot be said to be vitiated by any extraneous consideration
EB (PR) 196, dated 16.04.2010, the Government of Punjab State Power n Ltd. Thus, Chairman has instrumentality of the State, capable of framing its own rules and regulations, is entitled to decide the matter of implementation of policies that would impact its financial health. Speaking
8. We are not in a position to endorse this reasoning or conclusion KSRTC is an autonomous Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It can regulate the service of its employees by making appropriate ions in that behalf. Until such regulations are framed, it is entitled to take note of its financial health in considering whether a particular recommendation for enhanced pay or pension in respect is to This, of course, would be subject to any direction that may be issued by the State Government in
23. Even before us, also, it has been clearly pleaded by KSRTC that its financial position is unsound.
In fact, the High Court has also This Court has held that the financial position of a orporation takes a decision as to whether it should implement a Since we find from the relevant aspects brought out that the financial position taken by the State Government not to implement, here and now, the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission for KSRTC and the decision based on it by KSRTC are fully justified. Certainly, the deration PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
or perverse appreciation of the circumstances obtaining.” added
three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court others vs. Furthermore, Subbarayudu (supra), Anjana Bhattacharjee (supra), Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) Court has consistently held that imposing a certain cut pensionary benefits be arbitrary and violative of Article 14
16. additional affidavit filed have retired between 25 to 33 years to their credit Rs.277,80,04,974/ liability amounts to Rs.233,79,90,001/ the said affidavit, a liability of Corporation as family pension for the 1541 deceased retirees recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission are implemented from 01.01.2006, the Corporation would have to pay an excess amount of Rs. 94,00,77,087/ a loss of Rs. 6938.99 crores the year 2017
17. that the financial 18
or perverse appreciation of the circumstances obtaining.” added)
The decision in K.O Varghese Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources (2015) 5 SCC 333 Furthermore, in a catena of judgments such as Subbarayudu (supra), Anjana Bhattacharjee (supra), Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) and Satish Chander Sharma (supra Court has consistently held that imposing a certain cut pensionary benefits, for the reason of financial cons be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further still, as per Annexure R additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. have retired between 01.01.2006 and 30.11.2011 25 to 33 years to their credit. As such, the 277,80,04,974/-. However, since 1541 retirees have passed away, the net liability amounts to Rs.233,79,90,001/- for 8188 retirees.
Moreover, as per the said affidavit, a liability of Rs.44,00,14,973/ Corporation as family pension for the 1541 deceased retirees recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission are implemented from 01.01.2006, the Corporation would have to pay an excess amount of Rs. 94,00,77,087/-. The affidavit also clearly states that the Corporation incurred Rs. 6938.99 crores the year 2017-18 . As such, sufficient material has been placed on record to show that the financial health of the Corporation is not sound or perverse appreciation of the circumstances obtaining.” (emphasis K.O Varghese (supra) was also upheld by a Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.M.Sampath and Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources (2015) 5 SCC 333 such as Amar Nath Goyal (supra), N. Subbarayudu (supra), Anjana Bhattacharjee (supra), Rajesh Chander Satish Chander Sharma (supra,) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that imposing a certain cut-off date for extending , for the reason of financial constraints, cannot be held to and 16 of the Constitution of India. Annexure R-2/3 appended with the respondent No.2, 9729 employees 30.11.2011 and also have a service of he total liability up to 31.12.2019 is However, since 1541 retirees have passed away, the net for 8188 retirees. Moreover, as per 44,00,14,973/- also be incurred by the Corporation as family pension for the 1541 deceased retirees. Further, if the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission are implemented from 01.01.2006, the Corporation would have to pay an excess amount of Rs. clearly states that the Corporation incurred
18. ufficient material has been placed on record to show is not sound enough to extend the
(emphasis was also upheld by a and Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources (2015) 5 SCC 333. Amar Nath Goyal (supra), N. Subbarayudu (supra), Anjana Bhattacharjee (supra), Rajesh Chander e Supreme extending cannot be held to
the 2, 9729 employees service of is However, since 1541 retirees have passed away, the net for 8188 retirees. Moreover, as per by the Further, if the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission are implemented from 01.01.2006, the Corporation would have to pay an excess amount of Rs.
clearly states that the Corporation incurred ufficient material has been placed on record to show enough to extend the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
enhanced pensionary benefits to those who retired prior to 01.12.2011. Further, it is no longer
consideration for a Corporation to decide the commencement date of enhanced pension
arguments on part of the learned counsel for the petitioner indicating that the said cut-off date Court is of the considered opinion that respondents were justified in deciding to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 01.12.2011 and this exercise is not tainted by
18. already been considered by a Co Petition No. Letters Patent Appeal N conclusively decided such, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against order dated 09.07.2014(Annexure P Letters Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 2013 remedy in the form of appeal was available w failed to exercise, the pres CONCLUSION
19.
answered in the following manner: i. a cut- Pay Commission, in view of its financial health. The inability of the 19
ed pensionary benefits to those who retired prior to 01.12.2011. Further, it is no longer res integra that fiscal health
consideration for a Corporation to decide the commencement date of enhanced pensionary benefits. Therefore,
arguments on part of the learned counsel for the petitioner indicating that the off date has led to a blatantly capricious or outrageous result, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents were justified in to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 01.12.2011 and this exercise is not tainted by . Additionally, the grounds taken by the present petitioners have already been considered by a Coordinate Bench Petition No.11373 of 2012, and subsequently etters Patent Appeal No.1857 of 2013 conclusively decided this issue on merits, the same has attained finality. As such, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against order dated 09.07.2014(Annexure P-8) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 2013 remedy in the form of appeal was available w exercise, the present writ petition is not maintainable. CONCLUSION
In view of the discussion above, the questions framed above are answered in the following manner:
The PSPCL being a statutory corporation is entitled to prescribe -off date for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, in view of its financial health. The inability of the ed pensionary benefits to those who retired prior to 01.12.2011. that fiscal health is a relevant
consideration for a Corporation to decide the commencement date of herefore, in the absence of any specific
arguments on part of the learned counsel for the petitioner indicating that the capricious or outrageous result, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents were justified in to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 01.12.2011 and this exercise is not tainted by arbitrariness. Additionally, the grounds taken by the present petitioners have ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Writ , and subsequently by a Division Bench in o.1857 of 2013. Since the Division bench has , the same has attained finality. As such, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against order dated 8) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 2013. Since an effective alternate remedy in the form of appeal was available with the petitioners, which they ent writ petition is not maintainable.
In view of the discussion above, the questions framed above are The PSPCL being a statutory corporation is entitled to prescribe off date for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, in view of its financial health. The inability of the
ed pensionary benefits to those who retired prior to 01.12.2011. relevant
consideration for a Corporation to decide the commencement date of e of any specific
arguments on part of the learned counsel for the petitioner indicating that the capricious or outrageous result, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents were justified in to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission arbitrariness. Additionally, the grounds taken by the present petitioners have Civil Writ Division Bench in ch has , the same has attained finality. As such, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against order dated 8) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Since an effective alternate s, which they In view of the discussion above, the questions framed above are The PSPCL being a statutory corporation is entitled to prescribe off date for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, in view of its financial health. The inability of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Corporation to extend benefits of enhanced pensiona been demonstrated by relying on cogent material and as such, is not arbitrary in nature. ii. by a Division Bench of this Court on merits, the petitioners ought to have pursued 09.07.2014(Annexure P in Letters Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 2013 writ petition is held to be not maintainable. 20. miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21. paper-books of the connected matters. 19.08.2025 PC-
20
Corporation to extend benefits of enhanced pensiona been demonstrated by relying on cogent material and as such, is not arbitrary in nature. Since the issue in contention had already been adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court on merits, the petitioners ought to have pursued the remedy of appeal against order dated 09.07.2014(Annexure P-8) passed by the Division Bench of this Court Letters Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 2013 writ petition is held to be not maintainable. Accordingly, all the present petition miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Registry is directed to place a photocopy of this order on the books of the connected matters.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
Whether speaking/reasoned
Whether reportable
Corporation to extend benefits of enhanced pensionary benefits has been demonstrated by relying on cogent material and as such, is not Since the issue in contention had already been adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court on merits, the petitioners ought to the remedy of appeal against order dated 8) passed by the Division Bench of this Court Letters Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 2013.Therefore, the present writ petition is held to be not maintainable. petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Registry is directed to place a photocopy of this order on the (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
: Yes/No
: Yes/No
ry benefits has been demonstrated by relying on cogent material and as such, is not Since the issue in contention had already been adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court on merits, the petitioners ought to the remedy of appeal against order dated 8) passed by the Division Bench of this Court .Therefore, the present dismissed. Pending Registry is directed to place a photocopy of this order on the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document