Case for Pension Parity Between Past and Present Pensioners
1. Constitutional Foundation: Article 14 – Equality Before Law
Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws. This principle has been consistently held applicable to pensioners, who, despite retirement, continue to belong to a homogenous class.
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that arbitrary classification among pensioners based on date of retirement violates Article 14. Pensioners constitute a homogeneous class, and the State cannot create micro-classes among them unless backed by a rational and objective classification.
2. The Limited Rollback in Later Judgments: Distinction, Not Discarding
While Krishan Kumar (1990) and Indian Ex-Services League (1991) restricted the applicability of Nakara, these rulings did not overrule it. They merely held that Nakara does not automatically apply to entirely new pension schemes (e.g., CPF vs. defined pension schemes).
Yet, subsequent rulings have revived and reaffirmed the Nakara doctrine:
Dhanraj & Ors. v. State of J&K (1994) and
Union of India v. SPS Vains (2008)
both reiterated that discrimination in pension based solely on date of retirement is arbitrary and violates Article 14.
These affirmations prove that Nakara remains a binding precedent in situations where:
- The nature of service and retirement is the same,
- The difference in pension arises solely due to the date of retirement.
3. Principle of Liberalization Must Apply Equally
The Finance Commissions, Pay Commissions, and government circulars show a progressive trend in improving the pension regime, including:
- Additional pension with advancing age (VI CPC),
- Rationalization of pension computation (VII CPC),
- De-linking of pension from 33 years of service.
However, the benefits are often made available only prospectively, leaving earlier retirees disadvantaged.
This defeats the purpose of a "welfare State" as envisaged in Part IV (Directive Principles) of the Constitution.
4. Parity Promotes Dignity and Economic Security
It is unacceptable that two retirees of the same post and rank should receive disproportionate pensions merely because of a difference in retirement dates. This results in:
- Economic hardship for older pensioners,
- Loss of dignity,
- Social inequality within the same class of citizens.
As shown in the examples quoted in the 6th CPC Report (Para 10.1.64), past pensioners—even after several CPC revisions—still draw much lower pensions than recent retirees for the same post.
5. Judicial Observations on Rational Classification
In State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal (2005) and State of Punjab v. G.L. Gupta (2003), the Apex Court permitted classification only if based on intelligible differentia having rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
A classification solely based on the date of retirement does not meet this test—unless it can be proven that retirees before a date are fundamentally different in responsibilities, service nature, or benefits accrued—which is rarely the case.
6. Moral and Administrative Equity
Even administratively, it is easier to:
- Ensure equity by linking pension to last held post and applying uniform multipliers or fitment factors.
- Eliminate litigation and reduce administrative burden from repeated court cases.
A uniform formula will also reduce anomalies and simplify audit/compliance.
Conclusion and Demand
Given the above facts, judicial precedents, and principles of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution, pension parity must be established for all pensioners holding equivalent posts and retiring under similar service rules, irrespective of the date of retirement.
This parity:
- Is not a privilege, but a right under Article 14,
- Is supported by a long line of judicial reasoning,
- Reflects the moral and welfare obligation of the State.
Suggested Prayer (for Legal or Policy Representation):
We respectfully urge the Hon’ble Government/Commission to:
1. Implement pension parity for similarly placed pensioners, without arbitrary cut-off dates.
2. Apply uniform revision formulas retroactively to ensure fairness.
3. Constitute a Pension Equity Committee to review past anomalies in light of constitutional principles and recent jurisprudence.
→
