Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors vs N. Subbarayudu & Ors on 26 March, 2008

    CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 3939-3941 of 2002

PETITIONER:

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

RESPONDENT:

N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2008

BENCH:

H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

O R D E R

REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3939-3941 OF 2002

WITH

C.A. NO.3983/2004

 These appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment and order
of the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court
directed that the respondents be paid the pensionary benefits from the
respective date of their retirement under the provisions of Pension Rules 1980.

 We have heard the parties at length.

 Briefly stated the facts are as follows.

 The respondents were Lecturers in private aided college. The age of
superannuation of the respondents was 60 years. By an amendment of the Education
Code in 1993, the age of superannuation of the respondents has been brought down
to ......2.

- 2 -

58 years. In the said amendment it was also provided that the respondents shall
be entitled to pension with effect from 1st November 1992.

 Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred writ petition before the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the parties, was of
the view that the cut off date 1/11/1992 fixed by the Government was arbitrary
and discriminatory.

 In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date
is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions,
financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending
circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is
within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally
interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless
such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and
arbitrary. (See State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC
754).

 No doubt in D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India 1983(1) SCC 305 this Court
had struck down the cut off date in

......3.

- 3 -

connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this
Court has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara's Case
(supra), as observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab
& Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal & Ors. (supra).

 There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities
due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed. These considerations can
be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise
judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to
fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play
at the joints in this connection.

 In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that
the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular
reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by the Government,
(unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical) vide State of Bihar
vs. Ramjee Prasad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar
Jaiswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Backward
Class Bank Employees Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 (2) SCC 76

.....4.

- 4 -

(vide para 31), University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors.
1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been
given in the counter affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as
to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not
declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said
cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.

 As has been held by this Court in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr.
vs. Chander Hass & Anr. 2008(3) 3 JT 221 and in Government of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors. vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi 2008(2) 8 JT 639 the Court must maintain judicial
restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain.

 For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order of the High Court is set
aside. The appeals are allowed.