- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of U.P And Another v. Jogendra Singh And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent 1 served as a Senior Prosecuting Officer in Agra. Born on 20-10-1919, he would ordinarily have superannuated on 20-10-1977 (age 58). Instead, he opted for voluntary retirement on 12-04-1976 after completing 31½ years of service, invoking Fundamental Rule 56(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules (“U.P. FR”).
On 18-11-1976, the U.P. FR 56(e) was amended by adding a proviso empowering the appointing authority to grant up to five additional years of “notional service” for pension and gratuity to employees taking voluntary retirement. Thirteen years later, in February 1989, Respondent 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming the benefit of this newly inserted proviso. The High Court allowed the petition. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an employee who had voluntarily retired before the introduction of the proviso to U.P. Fundamental Rule 56(e) is entitled to have notional additional service counted for the purpose of pension and gratuity.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent 1’s Arguments
- Despite retiring before 18-11-1976, he should receive the benefit of the new proviso, i.e., one and a half years of additional qualifying service for pension and gratuity.
- He relied on the Supreme Court decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 to argue that depriving him of the benefit solely on the basis of his retirement date would be arbitrary.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 | Striking down an arbitrary cut-off date that excluded pensioners from revised benefits. | Distinguished; the Court held Nakara did not apply because no cut-off date was prescribed here and the amendment was inherently prospective. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that:
- All legislation is presumed to operate prospectively unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective.
- The amendment inserting the proviso into U.P. FR 56(e) took effect only on 18-11-1976 and contains no language giving it retrospective force.
- Respondent 1 retired before the proviso existed; at that time, he rightfully received pension and gratuity under the then-prevailing rules.
- The principle in Nakara was inapplicable: unlike Nakara, the present case did not involve an arbitrary cut-off date excluding an otherwise homogeneous class, but rather a legislative change operative only for future retirees.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Although the Court clarified that employees who retired before 18-11-1976 cannot claim the benefit of the proviso, it declined—consistent with the limited scope of the granted special leave—to disturb the monetary benefit already received by Respondent 1. No costs were awarded. The ruling reaffirms the prospective application of statutory amendments and confines the reach of Nakara to cases involving discriminatory cut-off dates.
Sujata V. Manohar, J.— At the material time, Respondent 1 was holding the post of Senior Prosecuting Officer, Agra. The date of birth of Respondent 1 was 20-10-1919. In the ordinary course, he would have retired on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years on 20-10-1977. The first respondent, however, took voluntary retirement after completion of thirty-one and a half years of service on 12-4-1976. He has been granted retirement benefits including pension and gratuity accordingly. Respondent 1 took voluntary retirement under the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. Under Rule 56(c), “the government servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying service of 20 years”. By the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment Act), 1976, certain amendments were made to Rule 56. Under one such amendment, sub-clause (e) of Rule 56 was amended by adding a proviso. Original Fundamental Rule 56(e) provided as follows:
“56. (e) A retiring pension shall be payable and other retirement benefits, if any, shall be available in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the relevant rules to every government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this rule.”
The proviso which was added was as follows:
“Provided that where a government servant voluntarily retires or is allowed voluntarily to retire under this rule the appointing authority may allow him, for the purposes of pension and gratuity, if any, the benefit of additional service of five years or of such period as he would have served if he had continued till the ordinary date of his superannuation, whichever be less;”
The Amending Act is of 18-11-1976. Therefore, the proviso came into effect on 18-11-1976.
2. The first respondent contends that although he had retired at a time when the proviso was not incorporated in the Fundamental Rules, he should be given the benefit of the proviso and an additional service of one and a half years should be counted for the purposes of his pension and gratuity. He filed in February 1989, about 13 years after the amendment, a writ petition in the High Court claiming the benefit of the proviso to Fundamental Rule 56(e). His writ petition has been allowed by the High Court and hence the present appeal has been filed before us by the State of U.P
3. The claim of Respondent 1 has been allowed by the High Court on the basis of the ratio of the decision of this Court in D.S Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305. The ratio in Nakara case (1983) 1 SCC 305 however, is not applicable in the present case. In Nakara case (1983) 1 SCC 305 a specific cut-off date was provided for the grant of pensionary benefits. Those who had retired prior to that date were not given the benefits. This was considered as arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of that case. There is no question of any cut-off date being prescribed in the present case. The first respondent was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. On the date when he took voluntary retirement and left service, he was given retirement benefits on the basis of the Fundamental Rules and other provisions which were then in force. Fundamental Rule 56 has been subsequently amended by an amendment which came into force on 18-11-1976 because the amendment inserting the proviso came on the statute-book on that date. It will, therefore, be applicable to all those who take voluntary retirement after the proviso was inserted. All laws, in this sense, are prospective unless they are made retrospective either expressly or by necessary implication. The Amending Act did not make the amendment retrospective. Therefore, persons who retired at a time when the proviso was not on the statute-book cannot claim the benefit of the proviso. The first respondent having retired prior to the insertion of the proviso in Fundamental Rule 56(e), cannot claim the benefit of the proviso.
4. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. However, at the time when special leave was granted in the present appeal, it was limited to the question whether an employee who had retired before the introduction of the proviso would be entitled to the benefit of that proviso for the purpose of computation of pension or gratuity. This Court had made it clear that in the case of the respondent, the Court did not propose to interfere with the order granting any benefit to him of the impugned order in view of the special facts of the case. We order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert