- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.P Ganguly v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant retired from service on 13-11-1985 while holding the post of Commissioner-cum-Secretary in the Finance Department of the Government of Tripura. His grievance concerns the denial of Dearness Relief under an Office Memorandum dated 16-4-1987, which granted relief with effect from 1-1-1986 to certain categories of pensioners but denied it to pensioners (including the appellant) who retired between 31-3-1985 and 31-12-1985.
The appellant claimed that due to this denial he was losing Rs 146 per month. The matter reached the Supreme Court in an appeal challenging an impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, with the appellant seeking interference with that tribunal order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the denial of Dearness Relief under the Office Memorandum dated 16-4-1987 to pensioners who retired between 31-3-1985 and 31-12-1985 warranted interference with the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. P.N Menon (1994) 4 SCC 68, (1994) 27 ATC 515 (SCC at p. 76) | No scheme of pension can be held to be foolproof so as to cover and keep in view all persons who are retired from service. | The Court invoked this principle to indicate that pension/dearness relief schemes may legitimately create categories that do not include every retiree, supporting its conclusion that the appellant’s exclusion did not, on the facts presented, justify judicial interference. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered the appellant’s complaint that he was denied Dearness Relief under the Office Memorandum dated 16-4-1987, allegedly resulting in a monthly loss of Rs 146. However, relying on the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the Court noted that the total pension being paid to the appellant was more than what was being paid to the three categories of pensioners who received the dearness relief under the same Office Memorandum.
From this, the Court drew the inference that, in substance, the appellant was not worse off. The Court further underscored (citing Union of India v. P.N Menon) that no pension scheme can be entirely foolproof to cover all retirees. In light of these considerations and the overall facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that no case was made out to warrant interference with the Central Administrative Tribunal’s impugned order.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
The direct effect is that the Central Administrative Tribunal’s impugned order remained undisturbed, and the appellant did not receive the claimed Dearness Relief benefit. The opinion does not indicate that any new legal principle or broader precedent was laid down beyond applying existing authority to the facts.
Order
The appellant retired from service on 13-11-1985. At the time of his retirement, he was holding the post of Commissioner-cum-Secretary in the Finance Department of the Government of Tripura. His grievance in this appeal is with regard to the denial of Dearness Relief on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 16-4-1987 whereby relief has been given with effect from 1-1-1986 to certain categories of pensioners but has been denied to pensioners, including the appellant, who retired between 31-3-1985 and 31-12-1985. The case of the appellant is that as a result of the said denial he is losing Rs 146 per month. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents before this Court, it appears that the total amount of pension which is being paid to the appellant is more than what is being paid to the three categories of pensioners who have been given the benefit of the dearness relief under Office Memorandum dated 16-4-1987. This would show that in substance, the appellant is not worse off. As pointed out by this Court, no scheme of pension can be held to be foolproof so as to cover and keep in view all persons who are retired from service. [See Union of India v. P.N Menon (1994) 4 SCC 68, (1994) 27 ATC 515 (SCC at p. 76)]. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider that a case is made out warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
Alert