By the impugned judgment and order dated 1.3.2016, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by observing that a classification is permissible and cutoff date can be pressed into service depending on financial resources of the State.
It was the case on behalf of the State that companysidering the financial companystraints of the State, the State was number in a position to extend the benefit of pension making the percentage given by the Government of India in its memorandum dated 17.12.1998 to the pre1996 pensioners and accordingly a decision was taken to extend the benefit of revised pension at certain percentage for the pre1996 pensioners and higher percentage for the post 1996 pensioners.
As per Rule 49 of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1972, a case of a government employee retired in accordance with the provisions of the rules after companypleting qualifying service of number less than 30 years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at 50 of the average emoluments subject to a maximum of Rs.4500/ per month.
That the Government of Manipur issued an office memorandum dated 21.4.1999 revising the quantum of pension.
Consequently, the State provided a lower percentage of increase to those who retired pre1996 and provided higher percentage of increase to those who retired post 1996.
The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under That the State of Manipur adopted the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972, as amended from time to time.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24.3.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition C No.
1455 of 2000, by which the learned Single Judge held that the method of calculating the revised pension in paragraph 4.1 of the office memorandum dated 24.4.1999 in respect of pre1996 pensioners is different from the method of calculating the revised pension for the Government employees who retired died in harness on or after 1.1.1996 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeal.
Relying upon the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakaras case supra , by the judgment and order dated 24.3.2005, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held the classification between those pensioners who retired prior to 1996 and those who retired after 1996 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and companysequently directed the State Government to pay the revised pension uniformly to all the pensioners irrespective of any cutoff date, i.e., those who retired pre1996 or those who retired post1996.
for employees who retired prior to 1.1.1996 and for employees who retired after 1.1.1996.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved by office memorandum dated 21.4.1999 providing two different revised pensions, viz, the higher percentage of revised pension to the government employees who retired on or after 1.1.1996 and the lower percentage of revised pension to those who retired on or before 1.1.1996, the appellant herein All Manipur Pensioners Association approached the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Manipur by way of Writ Petition C No.1455 of 2000.
The Division Bench has held that the cutoff date fixed by the State government as 1.1.1996 for payment of revised pension to pre1996 retirees and post1996 retirees cannot be termed to be unreasonable or irrational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore need number be held to be invalid.
The writ petition before the learned Single Judge was opposed by the State Government and the aforesaid classification was sought to be justified solely on the ground that companysidering the financial companystraints of the State, the State was justified in granting revised pension differently to those who retired after 1.1.1996 and those who retired before 1.1.1996.
It appears that companysidering the increase in the companyt of living, the Government of Manipur decided to increase the quantum of pension as well as the pay of the employees.
However, provided that those Manipur Government employees who retired on or after 1.1.1996 shall be entitled to the revised pension at a higher percentage and those who retired before 1.1.1996 shall be entitled at a lower percentage.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeal.
1455 of 2000, the State preferred appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
28 of 2006, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent State and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.3.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition C No.
R. SHAH, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Signature Not Verified Court of Manipur at Imphal dated 01.03.2016 passed in Writ Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date 2019.07.11 175650 IST Reason Appeal No.
