SC refers pension issues to larger bench

New Delhi, Feb 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question whether the retired government employees are entitled to the benefits of pension scheme introduced subsequent to their retirement.

A Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandey Katju in a judgment dated January 31, referred the issue to the larger bench in view of the conflicting judgment rendered by this court on the issue.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had held that the employees who retired before coming into operation of a pension scheme were also entitled to the benefit of the said pension scheme, while another bench had held that an employee is entitled to enhanced pension, only if, he was getting some pension at the time of his retirement and such benefit is available, only if, pension is increased through an amendment to the pension scheme subsequent to his retirement.

The important ruling came on an appeal filed by the Principal Secretary to Government Finance and Planning Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, who had challenged AP High Court judgment dated December 23, 2003, vide which the appeal of the state government was dismissed.

AP Pensioner Samaj and others had challenged AP government's order dated May 25, 1998, saying that the benefits of revised fixation of pension on the basis of the last drawn pay treating it as emoluments for the purpose of pension will be available only to the employees who had retired on or after May 25, 1998.

The APPS had sought directions from AP Administrative Tribunal that the benefits of the scheme should be extended to all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement and the pensioner who retired earlier should be given arrear also.

Tribunal allowed the application of the pensioner to the extent that pensioner cannot be denied the revision of pension on the basis of the revised formula. The tribunal, however, declined the plea for arrears. The High Court upheld the ruling of the tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the government.

The apex court has said, ''in view of apparent conflict in these decisions, we are of the opinion that the matter requires consideration by a larger bench of this court. Another point which requires consideration by a larger bench is whether any formal amendment to the AP Revised Pension Rule, 1980 was necessary consequent to the issue of the order issued in GOM Number 87 Finance, dated 25.05.1998, if the retired employees wanted to get the benefit of the latter. Let the papers of this case be placed before the Chief Justice for the constitution of the larger bench.'' UNI