Govt Resolution restricting revised pension to judges who retired after January 1996 quashed by Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed a 2016 Government Resolution (GR) which raised the pension payable to judges who retired after January 1, 1996. .The Court held that applying the revision only to judges who retired after January 1996 was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since it excluded pensioners who retired before 1996..The Court observed that since the division created due to the GR was both "arbitrary and unprincipled", the classification did not stand the reasonability test of Article 14. .The Court, therefore, allowed the plea filed by Raghavendra Anantrai Mehta, retired District and Sessions Judge of Satara who had challenged the GR on the ground that it was arbitrary and violative of equality since it created two classes of pensioners - those who retired pre-1996 and post-1996.."We are also unable to understand on what basis petitioner and others like him were left high and dry in as much as the same is neither discernible nor decipherable. No rational principle is outlined and explained by the respondent State to such an absurd classification," a Bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and VG Bisht held. .Mehta had approached the High Court seeking directions to the State to uniformly pay the revised pension as per the GR to the petitioner irrespective of the any cut-off date..Law and Judiciary Department, Maharashtra, opposed the plea contending that the GR was issued in compliance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in 2012 which benefited judicial officers who retired between January 1996 and January 2006. Since the cut-off date was given by the Supreme Court, the distinction amongst retired judicial officers is not a creation of State, it was argued on behalf of the government. .The State also submitted that the petitioner was indirectly seeking a modification of the Supreme Court order and such a prayer would not be maintainable. .Mehta contended that the Supreme Court order was dealing with the percentage of revised pension of the pensioners and the issue of increase of pension by 3.07 times of pensioners retired prior 1996 was never decided by the Supreme Court.The State while implementing the Supreme Court decision, had on its own restricted the benefit of increase of pension to those retired post 1996 without any justifiable reason, it was argued. .The High Court agreed with the petitioner's argument stating that there was no reason or rationale in subjecting Mehta and similarly placed pensioners to a differential and discriminating treatment. It also said that the State seemed to have misinterpreted the order of the Supreme Court. ."Petitioner and others placed in similar situation and those who retired on or after January 1, 1996 form only one homogenous class as a whole and therefore they all cannot be bifurcated or divided into two groups for the purpose of giving more financial benefits to one segment than the other, the Court observed," the judgment said. .In view of the reasons above, the GR was declared discriminatory and set aside..The State was also directed to pay the revised pension to Mehta and other similarly placed retired judicial officers within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of judgment..[Read Judgment]