UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. B. RAMA MURTHY
Tools
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- (year only)
- Citation
- [1995] 1 S.C.R. 665
Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0
Machine-read from a scanned report. Check the printed page before citing. Report an error.
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Held
There is no invidious discrimination in the classification of the pensioners who retired at different dates and in computation of the pension for different periods. O.M. is more beneficial to the retired employees. [666-G·H]
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
JANUARY 27, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.T.) B
Service Law-Compztt{ltion of half of the deamess pay for computation of pension-No invidious discrimination in the classification of pen- sioners-Office memorandum more beneficial to the retired employees.
Government of India's Office Memorandum which treated half of the c dearness pay as pay to compute retirement benefits was challenged by the respondent. The Central Administrative Tribunal declared it to be ultra vires as offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
> Before the O.M. 3/lOths of the 10 months average pay was computed D -1 for pension but after the O.M. the computation was 5/lOths.
Allowing the appeal filed against the Tribunal's order, this Court
Footnotes
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2986 of G 1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.89 of the Central Adminis- tative Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A. No. 45 of 1988.
K.N. Shukla, A.K. Srivastava and C.V.S. Rao for the Appeallants. H 665
p. 666
A Ms. Indira Sawhn"'y for the Respondent.
Judgment
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
' Leave granted.
B The Government of India in O.M. No. 18(4)-EV/79 dated May 25, 1979 introduced in paragraph 3(iii) that half of the dearn~ss pay was treated as pay to compute retirement benefits. That came to be challenged + by the. respondent in ·filing O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated August C 9, 1989 following a judgment of the Bangalore Tribunal declared it to be ultra vires, offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus this appeal by r special leave.
Footnotes
In view of the above ratio and practical effect of the O.M., we are of the opinion that there is no invidious discrimination in the classification of the pensioners who retired at different dates and in computation of the pension for different periods. The Government's O.M. makes discernible difference between government employees retired at different dates for entitlement to pension. In fact, the O.M. is more beneficial to the retired employees than was contended in the petition.
U.0.1.v. B.R.MURTHY 667
Und~r the cicrumstances,. the Tribunal was not right in follwing the earlier decision of the another Tribunal at Bangalore accepting the ratio in Nakara's ~ase without testing the facts and circumstances of this case. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
A.G. Appeal allowed.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0