State Of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioner Samaj .

Factual and Procedural Background

This Civil Appeal challenged an order dated July 5, 1989 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 760 of 1988. The writ petition was filed by the respondent, Rajasthan Pensioners Samaj, and was allowed by the High Court. The High Court directed the appellant-State to provide an opportunity to widows of contributors of the Jodhpur Provident Fund who had died before issuance of a Government memorandum dated October 17, 1987 to opt for family pension, and to pay family pension upon exercise of such option. The High Court further directed issuance of a necessary memorandum or amendment to the relevant rules within six months.

The Supreme Court noted that the matter had a “chequered history,” but found it unnecessary to restate the entire history, as it was set out in the lower court judgment and various Government memoranda. The High Court’s judgment under appeal was stated to be mainly based on D.S. Nakara v. Union of India.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court’s direction allowing widows of Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) retirees (who died before October 17, 1987) to opt for and receive family pension could be sustained in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, which explained and distinguished D.S. Nakara v. Union of India.
2. Whether CPF retirees (and by extension their widows) constitute a class different from pension scheme retirees (and their widows), such that widows of CPF retirees are not entitled as of right to switch over to the pension/family pension scheme.
3. Whether the right to opt for a pension scheme was a right of the employee that could not be inherited or exercised by the widows of retirees.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant-State's Arguments

• After the Constitution Bench judgment in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 207, the High Court’s reliance on D.S. Nakara v. Union of India could not sustain the impugned judgment.
• CPF retirees form a different class from those who opted for the pension scheme; therefore, CPF retirees are not entitled as of right to switch over from the provident fund scheme to the pension scheme, nor to claim benefits granted to pension retirees.
• Widows of Jodhpur CPF retirees and widows of pension retirees do not form one homogeneous class, but two different classes; consequently, widows of CPF retirees are not entitled to opt for the pension scheme in view of Krishena Kumar.
• The right to opt for the pension scheme was the right of employees and could not be inherited or exercised by widows of retirees.
• In light of the law laid down in Krishena Kumar, the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

Respondent's Position (as recorded)

• The respondent agreed to the State Government’s proposal to grant an ex-gratia payment of Rs 150 per month (with effect from November 1, 1989) to eligible widows, as submitted through the appellant’s counsel.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court heard counsel for both sides at length. After arguments concluded, the Court suggested that the appellant-government sympathetically consider the plight of the widows and submit a proposal to ameliorate their long-standing suffering. A proposal was accordingly submitted by the appellant.

While stating that it was not inclined to go deep into the matter due to the proposal placed by the government, the Court nonetheless expressed a firm view that there was “much force” in the appellant’s submissions. It held that the High Court’s order could not be sustained in light of the principle laid down in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 207, in which the decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India was explained and distinguished. On that reasoning, the impugned High Court order was set aside.

The Court then recorded the State Government’s agreement (as conveyed by appellant’s counsel) to grant ex-gratia payment at Rs 150 per month with effect from November 1, 1989 to the widows who were alive, of Jodhpur CPF retirees who had not opted for the pension scheme when opportunities were given and who had died after availing CPF benefits. The respondent’s counsel agreed to the proposal.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; IMPUGNED HIGH COURT ORDER SET ASIDE.

The Supreme Court directed the State Government to pay an ex-gratia amount of Rs 150 per month with effect from November 1, 1989, in addition to the admissible dearness allowance, to the eligible widows as described in the order. The direct consequence was that the High Court’s directions requiring an opportunity to opt for family pension and rule/memorandum amendments were nullified, and relief was instead confined to the ex-gratia payment arrangement accepted by both sides. The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond the parties or state that any new precedent was created.