GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS.

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 522 -~ A # GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. _v._ ## N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3939-3941 of 2002) MARCH 26, 2008 B ## **(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.)** - ~ _Constitution of India, 1950:_ _Article· 14_ - _Grant of pensionary benefits to lecturers in_ c _private aided College_ - _Fixing of cut off date as 1.11.1992_ - _High Court holding cut off date fixed, as arbitrary and discriminatory- HELD: Fixing cut off dates is within the domain of executive authority and Court should not normally interfere with such order unless it appears to be blatantly discriminatory_ D _and arbitrary_ - _Cut off date is fixed by executive authority keeping in view economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and attendant circumstances_ - _Even if no reason has been given as to why_ a _particular cut off date has been chosen, Court must still not declare that date_ E _[to ][be arbitrary and violative ][of ][Article ][14 ][unless the said cut ][off ] date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result_ - _Service Law_ - _Grant of pensionary benefits_ - _Cut off date_ - _Educational Institution_ - _Pension to Lecturers_ - _Cut off date._ ## **·J** _State of Punjab_ & _Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal_ & _Ors._ **(2005)** F **6 sec 754- relied on.** D.S. _Nakara_ & _Ors. vs. Union of India_ **1983(1) SCC 305** - **referred to.** _J.__ ## _Judicial Restraint:_ ## G _Cut off date_ - _Fixed by Government for grant of pension to Lecturers_ - _HELD: Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to executive authorities to fix cut off date_ - _Government must be left with some leeway and free_ ' Pl 522 523 GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. _v._ N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS. ~- **l** _**t**_ _play at the joints in this connection_ - _Court must maintain_ A _iudicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain._ .... > _State of Bihar vs. Ramjee Prasad_ **1990(3) SCC 368;** _Union of Indian_ & _Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal_ **1994(4) SCC** B **212;** _Ramrao_ & _Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association_ & _Ors._ **2004 (2) SCC 76;** · _University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary_ & _Ors._ **1996(10) SCC 536;** _Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf_ > _Club_ & _Anr. vs. Chander Hass_ & _Anr._ **2008(3) 3 JT 221 and** _in_ > _Government of Andhra Pradesh_ & _Ors. vs. Smt. P Laxmi Devi_[c ] **2008(2) 8 JT 639 - relied on .** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3939-3941 of 2002. From the final Judgment and Order dated 2316/2000 of D the High of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. Nos. 2089, 2461 and 2480/1990. ## WITH Civil Appeal No. 3983 of 2004. E D. Bharathi Reddy. for the Appellants. P.S. Narasimha, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Abid Ali Beeran P. and Neeru Vaid for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered F ... These appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court directed that the respondents be paid the pensionary benefits from the respective G date of their retirement under the provisions of Pension Rules 1980. We have heard the parties at length. Briefly stated the facts are as follows. H 524 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. J . .,.. A The respondents were Lecturers in private aided college. The age of superannuation of the respondents was 60 years. By an amendment of the Education Code in 1993, the age of superannuation of the respondents has been brought down to 58 years. In the said amendment it was also provided that the B[respondents shall ][be ][entitled ][to ][pension with effect ][from ][1st ] November 1992. A .. ' Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred writ petition before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the parties, was of the view that the cut off date 1 _I_ c 11/1992 fixed by the Government was arbitrary and discriminatory. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in D[view ][the ][economic conditions, financial constraints ][and ][many ] other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive E[authority unless such order appears ][to ][be ][on ][the face of it ] blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. (See _State of Punjab_ & _Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal_ & _Ors.,_ (2005) 6 SCC 754). No doubt in _D.S. Nakara_ & _Ors. vs. Union of India_ 1983( 1) SCC 305 this Court had struck down the cut off date in F[connection ][with ][the ][demand ][of ][pension. ][However, ][in ][subsequent ] decisions this Court has considerably watered down th_!=l rigid view taken in _Nakara's Case_ (supra), as observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in _State of Punjab_ & _Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goyal_ & _Ors._ (supra). G G There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise judicial restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive ' H[authorities ][to ][fix ][the ][cut off date. ][The ][Government must ][be ][left ] GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. _v._ N. SUBBARAYUDU & ORS. 525 with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection. A In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter affidavit filed by the Government, (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical) vide _State of Bihar_[8 ] _vs. Ramjee Prasad_ 1990(3) SCC 368, _Union of Indian_ & _Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal_ 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5), _Ramrao_ & _Ors. vs. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association_ & _Ors._ 2004 (2) SCC 76 c (vide para 31), _University Grants Commission vs. Sadhana Chaudhary_ & _Ors._ 1996(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the Court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result. 0 As has been held by this Court in _Divisional Manager, Aravali Goff Club_ & _Anr. vs. Chander Hass_ & _Anr._ 2008(3) 3 JT 221 and in _Government of Andhra Pradesh_ & _Ors. vs._ Smt. _P Lax mi Devi_ 2008(2) 8 JT 639 the Court must maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain. E For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The appeals are allowed. F R.P. Appeals allowed. G H