Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Dr. Jagdishwar Bhat

Supreme Court24 February 1997G.N. Ray

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an employee retires on superannuation, the benefit of notional extension of service granted under the rules for the purpose of calculating superannuation pension does not extend to the eligibility criteria for complimentary passes after retirement, which remains dependent on actual service rendered. An employee who retires on superannuation and an employee who retires voluntarily are not similarly circumstanced, and therefore rules that provide different benefits regarding complimentary passes to these two categories of retirees do not constitute discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and cannot be struck down on that ground.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties;

3. The short question which arises for our consideration is whether the respondent who is a retired Medical Officer of the Railway is entitled to Complimentary Passes. Such claim of the respondent was not accepted by the Railway Administration on the ground that the rules relating to grant of Complimentary Passes after superannuation require that the concerned employee has rendered minimum 20 years' of actual service. Admittedly, the respondent has not rendered 20 years' actual service. The respondent has been given the benefit of superannuation pension by extending the length of service on the basis of Rule 2423-A (C.S.R. 404-B). It appears to us that the benefit of such rule for superannuation pension is confined to case of superannuation pension and not for the purpose of extending the period of actual service for getting complimentary passes after retirement on superannuation.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that if in (he case of voluntarily retirement the benefit of extension of five years' service is given for the purpose of issuing complimentary passes, such benefit ought to be given to the person who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation and the rule discriminating between employee retiring on superannuation and employee retiring voluntarily in the matter of eligibility of getting complimentary passes after retirement offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be struck down for such discrimination. In our view, there is no question of discrimination because an employee voluntarily retired and retired on superannuation is not similarly circumstanced. The person who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation has been treated separately and for him benefits have been given by way of superannuation pension by notionally extending the period of service as already indicated. Such benefit of pension has not been given to employee voluntarily retired. Since employee retired on superannuation and retired voluntarily is not similarly circumstanced the different rule if any, for complimentary pass after retirement cannot be held to be discriminatory so that the rule requires to be struck down. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free