Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Union Of India vs Bidhubhushan Malik And Others

Supreme Court24 April 1984O. Chinnappa Reddy · A.P. Sen · E.S. Venkataramiah

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A temporal restriction in a statute that limits a benefit to persons retiring after a specified date is unconstitutional insofar as it denies the benefit to those retiring before that date on the basis of retirement date alone, and must be struck down; the benefit must be extended to all persons irrespective of when they retired. The operative date from which a liberalised benefit scheme becomes effective remains relevant for determining the commencement of entitlement, but does not operate to create an entitlement to arrears of the benefit for the period prior to that date for persons who retired before it.

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

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER:UNION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:BIDHUBHUSHAN MALIK AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/04/1984
BENCH:REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)BENCH:REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)SEN, A.P. (J)VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION:1984 AIR 1177 1984 SCR (3) 5501984 SCC (3) 95 1984 SCALE (1)643CITATOR INFO :R 1984 SC1247 (1)D 1990 SC1782 (34)D 1991 SC1182 (23)R 1992 SC 96 (8)

ACT: High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended)-First Schedule-Para 10-Validity of.

HEADNOTE: Affirming the decision of the High Court and dismissing the special leave petition, ^ HELD : (1) The words "and who has retired on or after the 1st day of October, 1984" appearing in para 10 of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended) are unconstitutional and are struck down. [550 A] (2) The Judges (including the Chief Justices) of the High Courts are entitled lo pension as computed under the Act (as amended) irrespective of their date of retirement. But they will not be entitled to arrears of pension for the period preceding October 1, 1984, the date which continues to be relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension became operative. [550 B-C] Decision of Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 3281 of 1979 (Judgment delivered on March 2, 1983) upheld.

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9616 of 1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd March, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 3281 of 1979.

K. Parasaran, Attorney General, R.D.A garwala and R.N. Poddar for the Petitioner.

The Order of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The Allahabad High Court has held :

"....The High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, (as amended) shall be read down as under, in para 10 of the 551 First Schedule, the words 'and who has retired on or after the 1st day of October, 1974" are unconstitutional and are struck down. Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that the Judges (including the Chief Justices) of the High Court are entitled to pension as computed under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, (as amended) irrespective of the date of retirement. The date October 1, 1974, continues to be relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension became operative under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 1976, irrespective of the date of retirement and hence there is no question of payment of arrears of pension for the period preceding October 1, 1974..."

For the reasons mentioned by the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court in their Judgment, we agree with their conclusion and dismiss the special leave petition.

H.S.K Petition dismissed. 552

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