*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….”

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