STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SEVANIVATRA KARAMCHARI HITKARI SAMITI

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SEVANIVATRA KARAMCHARI HITKARI SAMITI

Rule 268-H of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is not violative of Article 14. It is permissible for the State to introduce different retiral benefit schemes based on date of retirement where new benefits are prescribed with reasonable justification. The cut off date was not arbitrary, and different sets of rules for pensioners before and after the date are constitutional.

Parties
Appellant: State of Rajasthan; Respondent: Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 January 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Rajasthan High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned Rajasthan High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Family Pension, Retiral Benefits, Discrimination Under Article 14, Judicial Review of Public Policy
Constitutional Law Service Law Family Pension Retiral Benefits Discrimination Under Article 14 Judicial Review of Public Policy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Rajasthan

Appellant

Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samiti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Rajasthan High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cut off date in Rule 268-H of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14
  2. 2 Whether restriction of family pension benefits violates the principle in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
  3. 3 Whether prescribing a cut off date for new pension schemes is arbitrary

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 268-H of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is not violative of Article 14. It is permissible for the State to introduce different retiral benefit schemes based on date of retirement where new benefits are prescribed with reasonable justification. The cut off date was not arbitrary, and different sets of rules for pensioners before and after the date are constitutional.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned Rajasthan High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Rule 268-H is held constitutionally valid and not in violation of Article 14.
  • The State Government is asked to sympathetically consider antedating the benefits under Rule 268-H after reviewing relevant circumstances.