HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANRversusHIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION RETIRED EMPLOYEES UNION

104                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     2 S.C.R. 104
                              REPORTS                     [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A       HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
                                       v.
       HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION RETIRED
                    EMPLOYEES UNION
B                       (Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2012)
                             FEBRUARY 22, 2021
             [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
                                M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
             Pension: Fixation of cut-off date for implementing pension
C
      scheme – Whether discriminatory – Employees of the appellant
      Corporation were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund
      Scheme – Appellant Corporation introduced Pension scheme in the
      year 1995 – Cut-off date for implementation of pension date was
      fixed as 5.6.1995 that is from the date on which Scheme was
D     approved by the Cabinet/Government – Plea of respondent-Union
      that the fixation of cut-off date was arbitrary and discriminatory –
      Held: Employees of the appellant-corporation who were governed
      by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and retired prior to
      5.6.1995 and the employees of the appellant Corporation, who were
      in service and continued after 5.6.1995, cannot be treated as a
E
      homogeneous class – Retired employees, who were governed by the
      Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, on their retirement had
      already received the benefits of such Scheme, and constituted
      different class than those employees who were in service as on
      5.6.1995 – It is always open for the employer to introduce new
F     Schemes and benefits, having regard to financial health of the
      employer – Whenever such new benefit is extended for the existing
      employees, retired employees cannot seek such benefit, merely on
      the ground that they too were the former employees of the
      Corporation – When the members of the respondent-Union retired,
      there was no Pension Scheme at all – They were merely governed
G
      by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and, on retirement, they
      were already granted the benefit of such Scheme – In that view of
      the matter, retired employees cannot question the cut-off date fixed
      for grant of Pension Scheme.

H
                                      104
    HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. HIMACHAL ROAD                   105
        TRANSPORT CORPN. RETD. EMPLOYEES UNION


      Allowing the appeal, the Court                                  A
      HELD: 1. All the members of the respondent-Union, while
in service, were governed by Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme. All those employees who retired before 05.06.1995,
were paid all retiral benefits, applicable to them. As the Pension
Scheme was not in existence during the relevant time, it was not      B
the case of violation of any service conditions either. The Pension
Scheme is introduced by way of notification dated 06.10.1995, by
giving effect from 05.06.1995, on which date the Cabinet has
approved the Scheme. The employees who were governed by
the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and retired prior to
05.06.1995 and the employees who were in service and continued        C
after 05.06.1995, of the appellant Corporation, cannot be treated
as a homogeneous class. The retired employees, who were
governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, on their
retirement had already received the benefits of such Scheme,
constitute different class than those employees who were in           D
service as on 05.06.1995. [Para 19][113-D-G]
      State of Rajasthan and Another v. Amrit Lal Gandhi
      and others (1997) 2 SCC 342 : [1997] 1 SCR 121 –
      relied on.
      Union of India and another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal             E
      1992 Supp. (1) SCC 323 : [1991] 3 SCR 873; Subrata
      Sen and others v. Union of India and others (2001) 8
      SCC 71 : [2001] (3) Suppl. SCR 140 – held
      inapplicable.
      D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC               F
      305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; State of Punjab v. Amar Nath
      Goyal (2005) 6 SCC 754 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 549;
      Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & others v. N. Subbarayudu
      & others (2008)14 SCC 702 : [2008] 5 SCR 522; Suchet
      Singh Yadav and others v. Union of India and others             G
      (2019) 11 SCC 520; All Manipur Pensioners Association
      by its Secretary v. The State of Manipur and others
      (2019) 9 SCALE 282 : [2019] 9 SCR 905; R.L Marwaha


                                                                      H
106            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A           v. Union of India and others 1987(4) SCC 31: [1987]
            3 SCR 928 –referred to.
                              Case Law Reference
      [1987] 3 SCR 928                 referred to               Para 15
B     [1991] 3 SCR 873                 held inapplicable         Para 15
      [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 140          held inapplicable         Para 15
      [1983] 2 SCR 165                 referred to               Para 16
      [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 549          referred to               Para 16
C     [2008] 5 SCR 522                 referred to               Para 17
      (2019) 11 SCC 520                referred to               Para 18
      [2019] 9 SCR 905                 referred to               Para 18
      [1997] 1 SCR 121                 relied on                 Para 20
D           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7230
      of 2012
            From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.2009 of the High Court
      of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Writ Petition No. 1362 of 2001
            Vikas Mahajan, AAG Himanshu Tyagi, Vinod Sharma, Anil Kumar,
E
      Amarnath Singh, M.C. Dhingra, Mrs. Priya Puri, Yati Sharma, Ranjay
      Dubey, Ms. Rashmi Sachdeva, Sharad Kumar Puri, Advs. for the
      appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F           R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
            1. This appeal is filed by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation
      and another, aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 08.01.2009,
      passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, at Shimla in CWP No.
      1362 of 2001.
G            2. The Himachal Road Transport Corporation is established under
      The Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The employees of the
      Corporation were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme
      (CPF). The appellant-Corporation introduced a Pension Scheme in the
      year 1995, by issuing a Notification dated 06.10.1995 and adopted Central
H     Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The second appellant has approved
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. HIMACHAL ROAD                                 107
TRANSPORT CORPN. RETD. EMPLOYEES UNION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]


the Scheme formulated by the Corporation. The Pension Scheme was                A
given effect to from 05.06.1995, that is from the date on which Scheme
was approved by the Cabinet/ Government. For the employees who
retired from 05.06.1995, till the date of notification, i.e, 06.10.1995 and
for the employees in service, an option was given either to opt for Pension
Scheme, or to continue under the Contributory Provident Fund. Clause 5
                                                                                B
of the Scheme, stipulates eligibility criteria to opt for Pension Scheme.
        3. The respondent-Union, consisting of the employees who retired
prior to 05.06.1995, approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing
Original Application in OA (D) No. 237/1996, for grant of following
reliefs:
                                                                                C
         “i)    That the cut off date for grant of pension to those employees
                who were in service of the Corporation as on June 5, 1995
                be quashed and set aside;
         ii)    That the applicants i.e. pre June 5, 1995 employees, may
                be held entitled for pension as the other similarly situated    D
                employees between June 5, 1995 to October 6, 1995 have
                been given the benefit as per Clause 5 of the said Scheme;
         iii)   That the action of the respondents Corporation in denying
                pension to the applicants may be declared illegal, unjust,
                unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16, 21.”   E
       The respondent-union, relying on a judgment of this Court in the
case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India1 and several other
judgments, pleaded that the fixation of cut-off date was arbitrary and
discriminatory.
       4. The appellants have contested the Original Application, filed by      F
the respondent-Union, inter alia pleading that they have introduced a
Pension Scheme to the employees of the Corporation, with effect from
05.06.1995, on which date Cabinet has approved the Scheme. It was
the plea of the appellants that all the employees of the Corporation, who
retired prior to 05.06.1995, were already paid all the retiral benefits
                                                                                G
including the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund, as such the cut-off
date fixed, i.e, 05.06.1995, for implementing the Pension Scheme, was
not discriminatory.


1
    AIR 1983 SC 130 = (1983) 1 SCC 305                                          H
108            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A            5. The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by judgment
      dated 19.06.2001, dismissed the Original Application filed by the
      respondent-Union, by holding that the appellants are entitled to fix the
      cut-off date for introducing the Pension Scheme for its employees and
      such fixation is not discriminatory. It was held that all the employees of
      the Union, who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund, on
B
      their retirement, have already availed the benefit of such fund. It was
      further noticed by the Tribunal that, as the Cabinet has approved the
      Scheme in its meeting held on 05.06.1995 as such, the Scheme was
      given effect to from such date. By recording a finding that the employees
      who were already retired prior to 05.06.1995, constitute a different
C     category and are not similarly placed as those employees who were in
      service of the appellant-Corporation as on 05.06.1995, dismissed the
      Original Application.
             6. The respondent-Union, aggrieved by the judgment and Order
      of the Administrative Tribunal, approached the High Court of Himachal
D     Pradesh, at Shimla, by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 1362 of 2001. In
      the Writ Petition filed, mainly it was the case of the respondent-Union
      that, the cut-off date, i.e, 05.06.1995, fixed by the Corporation for
      implementation of Pension Scheme is discriminatory and has no
      reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It was the plea
      of Union that all the employees of the Corporation, constitute a
E     homogeneous class and there cannot be a classification within the class.
      By impugned judgment and Order dated 08.01.2009, the High Court has
      allowed the Writ Petition, by quashing the cut-off date, on the ground
      that no reasons were forthcoming from the appellant-Corporation, for
      picking up the cut-off date, i.e, 05.06.1995, for implementation of Pension
F     Scheme. Further, High Court has declared that the Scheme which was
      notified on 06.10.1995, shall apply to the members of the respondent-
      Union and other similarly situated persons, with a condition that they will
      have to deposit the amount received by them under the Contributory
      Provident Fund Scheme, within a reasonable time. The High Court has
      set aside the Order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 19.06.2001,
G     passed in OA (D) 237/1996.
            7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the High
      Court, the Road Transport Corporation is before us, by way of this civil
      appeal.

H
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. HIMACHAL ROAD                                109
TRANSPORT CORPN. RETD. EMPLOYEES UNION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]


       8. We have heard Sri Himanshu Tyagi, learned counsel appearing          A
for the appellant-Corporation and Sri M.C. Dhingra, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-applicant.
      9. It is contended by Sri Himanshu Tyagi, learned counsel for the
appellant-Corporation that, though there is no discrimination in fixing the
cut-off date, i.e, 05.06.1995, by way of Notification dated 06.10.1995,        B
the High Court has allowed the writ petition, without assigning valid
reasons. It is submitted that the employees who retired prior to 05.06.1995,
by availing the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, constitute
a separate class. After availing the benefit of Contributory Provident
Fund Scheme, on their retirement, it is not open to plead that Pension
Scheme, as notified for the existing employees and the employees retired       C
between 05.06.1995 and 06.10.1995 is discriminatory. The employees
who retired prior to 05.06.1995, and the employees presently in service,
cannot be treated as a homogeneous class. It is submitted that, it is
always open for the employer to extend further benefits to the employees
prospectively. When such Scheme is introduced with effect from the             D
date of its approval, i.e, 05.06.1995, same is rightly not extended to the
employees who retired prior to 05.06.1995. The Pension Scheme was
approved by the Cabinet on 05.06.1995, as such it cannot be said that
such a fixation is either arbitrary or illegal.
       10. On the other hand, Sri M.C. Dhingra, learned counsel appearing      E
for the respondent-applicant, has submitted that there is absolutely no
reason or justification for fixing the cut-off date, i.e, 05.06.1995, for
implementation of Pension Scheme. It is submitted that all the employees
of the Corporation constitute one homogeneous class and the appellant-
Corporation should not have made any distinction among such class of
employees. It is submitted that, as no valid reasons have been assigned        F
by the appellant-Corporation, for fixing the cut-off date, as such the
High Court has rightly allowed the Writ Petition and there are no grounds
to interfere with the same. Further submissions of learned counsel for
the respondent is that, though the Pension Scheme was notified vide
Notification dated 06.10.1995, same was given effect to retrospectively        G
from 05.06.1995, as such there is no reason for not extending such benefit
to the employees who retired prior to 05.06.1995 also. With the
contentions, as referred above, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of
the civil appeal.

                                                                               H
110            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A           11. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we have
      perused the impugned order of the High Court, the order passed by the
      Tribunal and other material placed on record.
             12. Before entering into the contentious issue of fixation of cut-
      off date, for extending the benefit of Pension Scheme by the Corporation,
B     we need to notice certain factual aspects emerging from the pleadings
      of the parties and other material on record.
             13. The members of the respondent-Union were initially employed
      by the Mandi- Kullu Road Transport Corporation. By Order dated
      24.09.1974, the said Corporation was re-named as “Himachal Road
C     Transport Corporation” and vide notification dated 01.10.1974, the
      Himachal Pradesh State Government has taken over the services of
      such employees with effect from 02.10.1974. All the members of the
      respondent-Union, who were retired, were governed by the Contributory
      Provident Fund Scheme, after their services were taken over by the
      Corporation with effect from 02.10.1974. The State Government has
D     notified the Pension Scheme on 06.10.1995, however, the same was
      made applicable with effect from 05.06.1995. The Administrative Tribunal,
      by drawing a distinction on the facts from the case of D.S. Nakara1 and
      other judgments relied on, on behalf of the respondent, has held that the
      point which arises in the instant case is different from the cases relied
E     upon. The Tribunal has held that the members of the respondent-Union
      were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund and had, on their
      retirement, availed such benefit whereas the Scheme of pension was
      made applicable with effect from 05.06.1995, as per the Notification
      dated 06.10.1995. The Tribunal, by recording a finding that the employees
      who already retired by availing the benefit under the Contributory
F     Provident Fund Scheme, constitute a different category and are not
      similarly placed as those employees who were in service of the
      Corporation on 05.06.1995, on which date the Scheme was approved,
      has dismissed the Original Application.
             14. When the order of the Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the
G     respondent-Union was challenged, by way of Civil Writ Petition, the
      High Court, by referring to certain cases decided by this Court, without
      any independent assessment on the issue in question, has allowed the
      writ petition, by impugned order.

H
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. HIMACHAL ROAD                                111
TRANSPORT CORPN. RETD. EMPLOYEES UNION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]


       15. In the case of D. S. Nakara1, this Court had treated the            A
pension retirees only, as a homogeneous class and all the pensioners
governed by The 1972 Rules, were treated as a class, because payment
of pension was a continuing obligation on the part of the State, till life
long to the pensioners, unlike the beneficiaries of the Contributory
Provident Fund. In the said case, it was never held that the pension
                                                                               B
retirees and the employees in service, constitute a homogeneous class.
In the case of R.L Marwaha v. Union of India and others2, this Court
has held that fixing of a date for grant of benefit, must have nexus with
the object sought to be achieved. There cannot be any dispute on the
proposition. Further, the case of Union of India and another v. Deoki
Nandan Aggarwal3, relates to fixation of cut-off date, for grant of            C
liberalized Pension Scheme. Even in the case of Subrata Sen and others
v. Union of India and others4, where a cut-off date was fixed for the
purpose of applicability of revised pension scheme this Court has held
that all retired employees constitute one homogeneous class and there
cannot be cut-off date fixed to extend such benefits. All the above said
                                                                               D
cases which are referred to and relied on by the High Court are not
relevant and cannot be pressed into service,to decide the issue which
arises on the facts of this case.
       16. Though there are long line of cases, where validity of fixation
of cut-off date is considered by this Court, we confine and refer to the
case law which is relevant to the facts of the case on hand. In the case       E
of State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal5, while examining the validity
of cut-off date fixed for grant of benefit of increased quantum of death-
cum-retirement gratuity, this Court has held that the financial constraint
pleaded by the Government, was a valid ground for fixation of cut-off
date and such fixation was not arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article   F
14 of the Constitution. While differentiating the facts with the case of
D.S. Nakara1, this Court held in para 29 of the judgment, which reads
as under:
       “29. D.S. Nakara1 which is the mainstay of the case of the
       employees arose under special circumstances, quite different from       G
       the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits

2
  1987 (4) SCC 31
3
  1992 Supp. (1) SCC 323
4
  (2001) 8 SCC 71
5
  (2005) 6 SCC 754                                                             H
112               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A              and classification of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-
               off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits to employees
               retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable
               was “being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified
               date”. This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised Pension
               Scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of
B
               the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in
               nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees
               who retired prior to a specified date, and those who retired
               thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify
               them into separate classes/groups for the purpose of pensionary
C              benefits was not founded on any intelligible dirrerentia, which
               had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
               However, it must be noted that even in cases of pension, subsequent
               judgments of this Court have considerably watered down the rigid
               view taken in D.S. Nakara 1 as we shall see later in T.N.
               Electricity Board v. R.Veerasamy (“Veerasamy”). In any event,
D
               this is not a case of a continuing benefit like pension; it is a one-
               time benefit like gratuity.”
             17. In the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & others v. N.
      Subbarayudu & others6, by noticing that a rigid view was taken in the
      case of D.S. Nakara1, this Court has considerably watered down the
E     same and has held that fixing the cut-off date is an executive function
      based on several factors like economic conditions, financial constraints,
      administrative and other circumstances. This Court further held that even
      if no reason is forthcoming from executive, for fixation of a particular
      date, it should not be interfered by Court, unless cut-off date leads to
F     some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.
            18. In the case of Suchet Singh Yadav and others v. Union of
      India and others7, ofwhich one of us is a party, (Hon’ble Ashok
      Bhushan,J.), while examining the claim of commissioned officers of
      defence forces, i.e, Army, Air force and Navy, who retired prior to
G     01.01.1996, for grant of next higher pay scale, on the strength of Order
      of Government of India dated 21.11.1997, which was issued in
      consequence of implementation of Fifth Pay Commission Report, this
      Court has not accepted the plea of discrimination. In the said judgment,
      6
          (2008)14, SCC 702
      7
H         (2019)11 SCC 520
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. HIMACHAL ROAD                                 113
TRANSPORT CORPN. RETD. EMPLOYEES UNION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]


it is held that pensioners, for purposes of pension, constitute one class       A
and schemes which classify pensioners on basis of cut-off date are
impermissible unless such classification is founded on some rational
principle. On the facts of the case, in the aforesaid judgment it is held
that the Order which was issued by the Government of India on
21.11.1997, is applicable only to existing officers and not retirees. Further
                                                                                B
in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary v.
The State of Manipur and others 8 , of which, one of us is a
party,(Hon’ble M.R.Shah,J.), when validity of Office Memorandum
dated 21.04.1999, issued for revising the quantum of pension by fixing
the cut-off date on 01.01.1996 is questioned, this Court has held that all
pensioners form only one homogeneous class and held that such a fixation        C
of date for extending the benefits of revised benefits to the pensioners,
is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
       19. Coming back to the facts of the case on hand, by applying the
case law which is referred above, it is clear that all the members of the
respondent-Union, while in service, were governed by Contributory               D
Provident Fund Scheme. All those employees who retired before
05.06.1995, were paid all retiral benefits, applicable to them. As the
Pension Scheme was not in existence during the relevant time, it was
not the case of violation of any service conditions either. The Pension
Scheme is introduced by way of notification dated 06.10.1995, by giving
effect from 05.06.1995, on which date the Cabinet has approved the              E
Scheme. The employees who were governed by the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme and retired prior to 05.06.1995 and the employees
who were in service and continued after 05.06.1995, of the appellant-
Corporation, cannot be treated as a homogeneous class. The retired
employees, who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund                 F
Scheme, on their retirement had already received the benefits of such
Scheme, constitute different class than those employees who were in
service as on 05.06.1995. There is a valid reason for giving effect to the
Pension Scheme from 05.06.1995, though the notification was issued on
06.10.1995. The cut-off date, i.e, 05.06.1995 is fixed on the ground that
the Cabinet has approved the Scheme from such date. As already noticed          G
above, it is always open for the employer to introduce new Schemes and
benefits, having regard to financial health of the employer. Whenever
such new benefit is extended for the existing employees, retired employees

8
    (2019)9 Scale, 282                                                          H
114               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A     cannot seek such benefit, merely on the ground that they too were the
      former employees of the Corporation. In spite of specific plea of the
      appellant-Corporation that the benefit of the Scheme was extended from
      05.06.1995, in view of approval granted by the Cabinet to the Scheme,
      the High Court has erroneously recorded a finding that no reason has
      been assigned to choose such cut-off date. It is true that all pensioners
B
      constitute one class and whenever, revision is effected, ordinarily such
      benefit is to be extended to all the pensioners but at the same time, the
      scenario in the case on hand, is totally different. On the facts of this
      case, it is to be noticed that when the members of the respondent-Union
      retired, there was no Pension Scheme at all. They were merely governed
C     by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and, on retirement, they
      were already granted the benefit of such Scheme. In that view of the
      matter, only on the spacious plea that all the employees of the Corporation
      constitute homogeneous class, cannot question the cut-off date fixed for
      grant of Pension Scheme.
D            20. It is profitable to refer a judgment of this Court, in the case of
      State of Rajasthan and Another v. Amrit Lal Gandhi and others 9.
      The ratio decided in the said case is identical to the issue on hand in the
      present case. In the aforesaid case, pursuant to recommendations made
      in the year 1986, by a committee appointed by University Grants
      Commission, the Syndicate and Senate of the University has
E     recommended for introducing a Pension Scheme for the employees of
      the University. The State Government’s approval was sought, which
      was given for introducing the Scheme with effect from 01.01.1990. When
      such fixation of cut-off date from 01.01.90 was found fault with, by the
      High Court and the High Court issued directions to give effect from
F     01.01.1986, while reversing the judgment of the High Court, this Court
      has held that fixation of cut-off date from 01.01.1990 cannot be said to
      be arbitrary or discriminatory. Relevant paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the
      judgment, read as under:
               “16. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the present
G              case, we find no justification for the High Court having substituted
               the date of 1-1-1986 in lieu of 1-1-1990. It is evident that for
               introducing a pension scheme, which envisaged financial
               implications, approval of the Rajasthan Government was required.

      9
H         (1997) 2 SCC 342
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. HIMACHAL ROAD                                  115
TRANSPORT CORPN. RETD. EMPLOYEES UNION [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]


      In the letter of 16-4-1991, written to the Vice-Chancellors of             A
      different universities of Rajasthan, it was stated as follows:
      “As per the direction in regard to the aforesaid subject, the State
      Government has decided to introduce Pension Scheme in the
      Universities of the State w.e.f. 1-1-1990. In this regard the State
      Legislature has passed University Pension Rules and General                B
      Provident Fund Rules. Therefore, by enclosing a copy of
      University Pension Regulations and General Provident Fund
      Regulations with this letter, it is requested that by obtaining approval
      of the competent body or Syndicate of the University, these
      Regulations be implemented in the University together and
      necessary information regarding implementation be intimated.”              C

      17. The Syndicate and Senate of the University, when they had
      forwarded their recommendations in 1986, did not contain a specific
      date with effect from which the pension scheme was to be made
      applicable. Their recommendations were subject to approval. The
      approval was granted by the Government, after the State                    D
      Legislature had passed the University Pension Rules and General
      Provident Fund Rules. The Government had stated in its affidavit
      before the High Court that the justification of the cut-off date of
      1-1-1990 was “wholly economic”. It cannot be said that the paying
      capacity is not a relevant or valid consideration while fixing the         E
      cut-off date. The University could, in 1991, validly frame Pension
      Regulations to be made applicable prospectively. It, however, chose
      to give them limited retrospectively so as to cover a larger number
      of employees by taking into account the financial impact of giving
      retrospective operation to the Pension Regulations. It was decided
      that employees retiring on or after 1-1-1990 would be able to              F
      exercise the option of getting either pension or provident fund.
      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 arbitrarily or without
      any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the            G
      writ petitions and substituting the date of 1-1-1986 for 1-1-1990.”
      21. The High Court, without noticing the difference of factual
background, in the cases relied on by the respondent-writ petitioner and
without independently considering the issue in question, has allowed the
                                                                                 H
116              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 2 S.C.R.


A     writ petition. In view of the same, we are of the view that judgment of
      the High Court deserves to be set aside.
            22. Accordingly, this civil appeal is allowed. Judgment of the
      High Court dated 08.01.2009, passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1362 of
      2001 is set aside, consequently said writ petition stands dismissed, with
B     no order as to costs.

      Devika Gujral                                               Appeal allowed



C




D




E




F




G




H