ORDER
1. Heard both sides. The Writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge by his order dated 26.11.1992 on the ground that the classification as at present between employees of the Government Organisations and Government department and Nationalised Banks including Reserve Bank of India and on the other hand other employees under private organisations is quite reasonable. According to the learned single Judge the classification is quite reasonable for the reason that while the employees in Government Organisations will have security of service and fixity of tenure, the private employees will not have the same benefit. More often, the private employees are sent out at the whims and fancies of their employers and they cannot be placed on the same pedestal as the Government employees. Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that whether a person is employed under an individual on the one hand or in a Government department on the other, the position with regard to their drawing pension will be the same and particularly when they retire from the new employment; they will be in the same boat as regards the pension payable by the Army authorities. The learned Judge rejected the contention that when the object of the order is to benefit the ex-servicemen, there can be no exclusion of a particular category of such ex-servicemen.
2. We have gone through the impugned notification which refers to several categories of persons excluded from the benefit of one time increase in pension. As pointed out by the learned single Judge the situation can only be considered as on date and no hypothetical inference can be drawn on the basis that after retirement, they will be left without any other benefit except the pension received from the Army authorities. Before us also the very same contention was raised. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the pension which was paid to the members of the appellant-Federation is for the service rendered by them as ex-servicemen in the defence that has nothing to do with the present employment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant cited before us a decision of the Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India and contended that even as per the said decision of the Supreme Court any further classification among the retired employees is not only unreasonable but also arbitrary and when the object of the impugned order is to benefit the ex-servicemen, there cannot be any exclusion of a particular category. We are unable to agree with the said contention. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the IV Pay Commission considered the case of the Ex-servicemen after the judgment of the Supreme Court and the very object of making the one time increase as found in the order is to benefit all the retired employees including Ex-servicemen.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent placed before us a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3543 to 3547 of 1990 wherein the Supreme Court held that denial of Dearness Relief on pension/family pension in cases of those ex-servicemen who got re-employment or whose dependents got employment is legal and just, and the decision to reduce the enhanced pension from pay of those ex-servicemen only who were holding civil post on 1.1.1996 following their re-employment is however unconstitutional.
5. We are of the view that pension is a welfare measure and rules are framed as per merit of the situation and hence the differentiation in grant of one time increase in pension based on reasonable classification as stated above is constitutional and legally valid. We are also of the view that the Government orders on grant of one time increase in pension make a reasonable classification between defence employees re-employed under a Government Department and those under private concern, and do not in any manner violate Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
6. Appeal dismissed.