*Some citations of the Supreme Court judgments &
Andhra Pradesh high Court judgment on Tuesday 27.7.2004
in their order on Writ petitions Nos.13680,16407,23938 of 2001 & 6122 of 2002
1.All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association vs.Union of India—AIR 1992, SC 767): Hon.Mr Justice Ahamadi reasserted: “The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by the court time and again,. It is not charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for the past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee”.

2.D.S.Nakra case: The Supreme Court held that pension is neither a bounty nor a gratuitous payment depending solely upon the sweet will or grace of the employer. It is a right and its payment does not depend upon the discretion of the Government. Entitlement to pension to government servants being the product of statutory rule is an enforceable right. Pension is paid as a monthly benefit for past satisfactory service rendered while the employee was physically and mentally alert and in expectation that he would be looked after in the fall of life.
Classification of pensioners will have to answer the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, further held the court……
…..the Supreme Court concluded, pensioners for the purpose of pensionary benefits form a class. Such homogeneous class could not be arbitrarily divided when the pension undergoes an upward revision. The fixation of the cut off date was arbitrary ..... The division classifying pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle, held the Court.
3.Writ petitions Nos.13680, 16407, 23938 of 2001 and 6122 of 2002.Ramachandra Raju and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh: The Fifth Central Pay Commission also required that as pension is not in the nature of a dole, it should be fixed, revised, modified and changed in ways not entirely dissimilar to the salary granted to the serving employees. A fortuitous circumstance of the date of retirement cannot constitute a legitimate ground for classification, and a classification founded on such fortuitous circumstance would not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4.R.L.Marwah vs.the Union of India and others: The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any acceptable explanation or justification, the classification of pensioners who were working in the Government/autonomous bodies into two classes merely on the basis of the date of retirement is unconstitutional .....
5.Indian Ex-services League and others vs. the Union of India and others: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Nakra held that the pensioners constitute a homogeneous class and the benefits of liberalized pension should be extended equally to all retirees, irrespective of their date of retirement and could not be confined only to those who retired on or after the prescribed date. As a result of this ratio, the Supreme Court in Nakra struck down the relevant parts of the OM which confined the liberalized benefits to retirees on or after a specified date and extended the benefits to all retirees covered by the pension scheme.

6.Supreme Court judgment on 9.9.08 in Baines case:
“….The question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved, has fallen for consideration at various intervals for the High Courts as well as this Court, over the years. The said question was taken up by a Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) where in no uncertain terms throughout the judgment it has been repeatedly observed that the date of retirement of an employee cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that is the criterion those who retired by the end of the month will form a class by themselves. In the context of that case, which is similar to that of the instant case, it was held that Article 14 of the Constitution had been wholly violated, inasmuch as, the Pension Rules being statutory in character, the amended Rules, specifying a cut-off date resulted in differential and discriminatory treatment of equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It was further observed that it would have a traumatic effect on those who retired just before that date. The division which classified pensioners into two classes was held to be artificial and arbitrary and not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there was any, had not only no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by amending the Pension Rules, but was counter productive and ran counter to the very object of the pension scheme. It was ultimately held that the classification did not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution….”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

statutory right of the employee is enforceable through courts.. The supreme court has declared pension as one of the fundamental rights.

From: M.Venkatesan, To. Hon’ble Chief Justice,
16, Raja Apartments,15-BKN street, Madras High Court,
Westmambalam,Chennai-600033. Chennai-600104.
Fax No.24957230/25332101
Sir,
Sub: Appeal-II for early hearing-submitted
Ref: WP.10442 of 2008
Appeal-I to Hon’ble CJ dt.18.03.2009.

Namaste.
I am a senior citizen & cancer patient fighting for my right to pension which was deprived stealthily by an executive fiat of Commerce Ministry in 1994. My first WP.16155/1997 filed for pension benefits. During its pendency I got hold of certain documents under RTI Act-2005 which exposed that SVRS-1994 scheme itself is ILLEGAL & in violation of all constitutional provisions. As I could not change the prayer in the final stage, I was forced to file a fresh WP.10442/2008 as the cause of action is totally changed.
Now 15years elapsed since my retirement and my fear is that, will I get the justice before my end? Under these circumstances I pray your lordship to consider my appeal favorably for early disposal of my WP on merits.
Thanking you.

Truly Yours,


Venkatesan.M
27th.June2009,
Chennai-33.

c.c to. Shri.KR,advocate/ Shri.KV,PS to HCJ

Kochi case hearing comesup on 29th.June ,Monday
COURT 3C ( 17) 29/06/2009
916. WP(C) 34008/2005(W) SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)/

& CM.Appl. 7750/2006 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
& CM.Appl. 2963/2007 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

My nominee for RTI Awards-2009

Shri. Wajahat Habibullah, Chief Information Commissioner,

STORY OF AN ENCOUNTER

HOW THE COMMERCE MINISTRY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION!!!

I was a govt. employee of Export Inspection Agency-a statutory body under Commerce Ministry, covered by CCS Pension Rules of 1972.In 1994 over 700 employees opted for SVRS & govt. partly settled retirement benefits till 1997. We filed cases for not effecting full payment of attended benefits.

Simultaneously after 11years of my efforts I got an original circular of Commerce Ministry dt.21/05/1994 under RTI Act-2005 which exposed that the 1994-VRS scheme itself is not an approved one by the Nodal depts. Also the commerce ministry’s executive fiat which was circulated among employees was deliberately edited by the officials to cheat the employees. So the circular is NULL & VOID & the scheme is ILLEGAL as the Commerce Ministry has violated all the constitutional provisions.

From 2005 I have been approaching various govt. agencies for Justice. With no tangible solutions forthcoming I filed a fresh writ in Madras high court which is still pending. My efforts for a negotiated settlement also failed. My appeals to the Hon’ble PM-incharge of ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension, and the Hon’ble President-custodian of Pension Act-1871 did not receive the attention.

Pension is not a bounty and ministry officials cheated the employees by circulating an executive fiat which suppressed the facts to deprive our fundamental right to pension. When one time legislators demand pension, the govt. employees who have worked for over 20years have been fooled by the fraudulent SVRS-1994 circular.

As the RTI Act-2005 helped me to expose the Commerce Ministry’s fraud on employees I nominate Shri. Wajahat Habibullah,Chief Information Commissioner, on behalf of over 700 employees for the RTI Award-2009

For more details please visit : http://venkym.blogspot.com/

M.Venkatesan,16-Raja apartments,15(5A)Balakrishna Naiken street,Westmambalam, Chennai-600033.