Gauhati High Court | State Cannot Arbitrarily Classify Pensioners Of Homogenous Class By Cut-Off Dates | Retirees Between 2006–2009 Entitled To Revised Pension Under Assam Pay Commission, 2008
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury dismissed an appeal filed by the State authorities challenging the grant of revised pensionary benefits. The Division Bench held that the appeal lacked merit and directed that the earlier judgment, which had extended pensionary benefits to retired employees in accordance with the Assam Pay Commission 2008 recommendations, did not require interference. The Court recorded that the classification of pensioners into two categories on the basis of a cut-off date lacked justification and violated constitutional principles of equality. The appeal was therefore dismissed, upholding the judgment passed earlier by a Single Judge directing the revision of pensionary benefits.
The proceedings arose out of a dispute concerning the benefits of arrears of pension and Death-Cum Retirement Gratuity arising from the recommendations of the Assam Pay Commission 2008. The controversy centered around whether pensioners who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009 were entitled to the same benefits as those who retired thereafter. The State authorities had decided not to grant arrears of pensionary benefits to those retiring during this interim period, citing financial constraints, and instead extended notional benefits. The writ petition challenged this decision.
The writ petition was filed questioning the decision of the State of Assam not to extend arrears of pension, gratuity, and related benefits arising from the Assam Pay Commission 2008 to those employees who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009. The State had accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Commission with effect from 01.01.2006. Nevertheless, pensioners who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009 were not granted actual arrears of pension, on the stated ground of financial stringency.
The Single Judge, in the writ proceedings, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. The Court held that the classification made by the authorities was impermissible in the case of pensioners, who constituted a single class. It was recorded that while those who retired before 01.01.2006 naturally would not be entitled to benefits of a revised pay scale, those who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009 could not be deprived of the benefits merely on the grounds of financial difficulties. The Court further noted that there was no material to show that the financial difficulties of the State would be overcome after three years.
Aggrieved, the State filed an appeal before the Division Bench, placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 754. It was argued that financial constraints provided a valid ground for fixing a cut-off date for grant of increased pay and pensionary benefits. However, this appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the State in order to seek review before the Single Judge.
The review petition was filed but dismissed on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The review court observed that the issues raised did not disclose any manifest error that could be rectified without elaborate arguments or extended reasoning.
The present appeal was filed challenging both the original writ judgment and the dismissal of the review petition. The appellants reiterated that the State possessed the authority to fix a cut-off date for extension of pensionary benefits and that financial difficulties were a legitimate consideration in determining eligibility.
The respondents contended that all pensioners formed a homogeneous class. They argued that once the Assam Pay Commission 2008 recommendations were implemented with effect from 01.01.2006, there was no justification for excluding those who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009. The respondents relied on precedents to assert that arbitrary classification within a single class of pensioners violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench recorded that there was no dispute regarding the State’s power to fix a cut-off date for pensionary benefits. The Court noted: “there is no dispute on the proposition of law as urged by Mr. Borpujari, learned Advocate, that generally the State has the power to fix a cut-off date for extending pensionary benefits and that financial constraint can be a valid ground for fixation of a cut-off date for the grant of the benefit of increased quantum of pay or other benefits.” However, the Court further stated: “it is equally well settled that if the cut-off date is arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ Court can strike it down.”
The Bench observed that in the case of D.S. Nakara, the Supreme Court had held that classification between pre and post cut-off date retirees was arbitrary when both groups constituted a homogeneous class. It stated: “In substance, when all the retirees formed one homogenous class, the benefits must be extended equally.”
Addressing the facts of the present matter, the Bench recorded: “In the case in hand, there is no dispute at the bar that the pensioners in question retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009. There is also no dispute in the present case that the recommendation of the Assam Pay Commission, 2008, was accepted and implemented with effect from 01.01.2006. Given this position, there is no valid justification for creating two classes of pensioners: those who retired between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2009, and those who retired after 31.03.2009, solely to grant a revised pension.”
The Court held that all such pensioners formed one class and were entitled to revision of their pensions in terms of the Assam Pay Commission 2008. The Division Bench cited the Supreme Court’s decision in All Manipur Pensioners Association v. State of Manipur, (2020) 14 SCC 625, noting: “in this case, also, the classification as aforesaid sought to be made by the State has no nexus with the object and purpose of the grant of the benefit of revised pension.”
The Bench further observed: “The object and purpose of such revision is due to increase in cost of living and when all the pensioners formed a single class, there cannot be any separate classification amongst this homogenous group and therefore, the actions of the authorities are rightly held by the learned Single Judge to be unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Finally, the Court stated: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the ratio laid down in D.S. Nakara (supra) and All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) are applicable in the given facts of the present case and the determination made in State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) cannot be placed into service, in the facts of the present case.”
The Division Bench concluded its judgment by dismissing the appeal. It recorded: “For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal lacks merit and the impugned judgment and order dated 28.04.2016, requires no interference. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. R. Borpujari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate; Mr. P. Saikia, Government Advocate, Assam
Case Title: State of Assam v. All Assam Retired Officers, Teachers and Employees Committee & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:11212
Case Number: WA/418/2023
Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
