W. A. No. 1682 of 2021

W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -1- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** **WA NO. 1682 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12114/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS:** - **1 ADV. N.O.INASU AGED 58 YEARS S/O. N.I OUSEPH, NADAKAVUKARAN (H), MAIN ROAD P.O, URIACHIRA, THRISSUR 680 006** - **2 ADV. AJITHA KUMARI C AGED 51 YEARS W/O. K. RAVI, KRISHNAPADAM, KAUSTHUPAM LANE, PUTHURKARA, AIYANTHUR 680 003** - **3 ADV. P. MURALEEDHARAN, PURATHODATH HOUSE, NADAKKATHUZHA P.O, BADAGARA (VIA), KOZHIKODE 673 104** - **4 ADV. JOSEPH MATHEW AGED 58 YEARS MADAPAM HOUSE, CHENNAD P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 581** - **5 ADV. P.V PRAKASAN, AGED 53 YEARS JAYA NIVAS, SOUTH PARAVOOR P.O, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 307** - **6 ADV. V.P ASOKAN AGED 58 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHAN, KUMARAKAM P.O, KOTTAYAM** - **7 SMT. LIJU B NAIR AGED 49 YEARS SREE SHYLAM, A.R.W A-4,KURIYATHI, MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009** W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -2- - **8 ADV. NINUKUTTIMOOSA VELLEPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O, ERNAKULAM 682 506** - **9 SHRI VENUGOPALAN NAIR CHAITHRAM, ARALAMMOOD (VIA), NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **10 ADV. SOBHA VARGHESE AGED 51 YEARS CC 1/926 A, KOTTAVALAPPU, KOCHI 682 001** - **11 ADV.M.S MARIA JAIN, AGED 44 YEARS W/O. JOLLY JOSEPH, ARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CMC 32, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA** - **12 ADV K LATHA AGED 57 YEARS W/O. ADV. K BABU, SHIVA SURYA , SOUTH GATE, CANAL SIDE, VAIKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 141 BY ADV M.R.NANDAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001** - **2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY(FINANCE) FINANCE 9WELFARE WING) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001** - **3 KRISHNAPILLAI C.K AGED 64 YEARS** **CHENGAZHASSERIL HOUSE, THOTTABHAGAM P.O, THIRUVALLA 689 541** - **4 S. SWARNALATHA** **ADVOCATE, O/O. NEAR TRAFFIC JUNCTION, PALLAM ROAD, KASARGOD, TRINITY TOWERS, KASARGOD, RESIDING AT SHAKTHI MAHAL, BANK ROAD, KASARGODE 671 315** W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -3- ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR GP FOR R1 AND R2 SMT. SINDHU SANTHALINGAM, FOR R3 AND R4** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -4- ## **J U D G M E N T** ## S. Manikumar, C. J. Instant writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment in W. P. (C) No. 12114 of 2019 dated 14.01.2021, by which, a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as hereunder:- Appellants are the petitioners in W. P. (C) No. 12114 of 2019. The grievance of the appellants is that after their service as full time members of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in various districts of Kerala, they were not granted retirement benefits, for the reason that they were appointed prior to 01.01.2006. Those who appointed on or after 01.01.2006 were granted retirement benefits. The cut of date fixed is arbitrary. Appellants have submitted that they were appointed as Full time Members of Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums in different periods W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -5- commencing from 1991 to 2007. During the initial period honorarium was very low and no other benefits were given to the members. Pursuant to several representations and strenuous effort of the appellants and other former members, Government have granted retirement benefits to the members of the Statutory Forums, as per order dated 28.11.2016. The claim of the appellants to direct the respondents to grant monthly retirement benefits to the appellants, taking into account of their services as members of various District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, was rejected by the learned Single Judge. ## 3. Before the writ court, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for retirement benefits whose term expired prior to 1.1.2006. ii. To issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to quash or set aside Exhibit P1 order to the extent that it extend to the members who retired on or after 01.01.2006 as it denies benefit to the members who retired prior to 01.01.2006. W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -6- iii. To declare that the petitioners who are retired prior to 01.01.2006 are entitled for retirement benefits as it is granted to the members of district forum who retired on or after 01.01.2006 as per Exhibit P1.” 4. On behalf of the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance), Finance (Welfare Wing) Department, Thiruvananthapuram, the 2[nd] respondent, a statement has been filed in the writ petition. ## 5. Relevant paragraphs of the statement are reproduced:- “3. Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with composition of the District Forum. Accordingly, each District Forum has 3 Members including one Lady Member. Rule 15 of the Kerala Consumer Protection Rule 2005 provides salary, honorarium, other allowances and the conditions of service of the President and Members of the District Forum. The aforesaid rule does not say anything regarding the pensionary benefits to the Members of the District Forum. Hence, the petitioners have no vested right or legal right as stated in the writ petition. 4. By Exhibit P1 Government Order, Government introduced a new scheme to the members of the Statutory Commissions who have no prior Government Service. Accordingly, they are eligible for monthly retirement benefits at the rates prescribed in the G.O. according to their service terms in the Commissions. In the Government Order, it is specifically stated that only those persons who are appointed on or after W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -7- 01.01.2016 in Statutory Commissions will be eligible for monthly retirement benefits. The G.O was issued on 28.11.2016; after taking into account of numerous representation for granting retirement benefits from members of Statutory Commissions who were appointed from outside the Government Service and who did not enjoy any service retirements benefits. While issuing Exhibit P1 Government Order, due care was given to incorporate service terms of members of Statutory Commissions. Extending the benefit beyond the period provided in the order would create huge financial liability and administrative burden to the State. 5. It is submitted that the Government fixed cut-off date consciously after taking into account various facts and reasons especially the year of Constitution or establishment of Commission varies from Commission to Commission. For example, the Women's Commission was constituted in 1996 and the Kerala State Commission for Minorities was constituted in 2013. Hence, a general cut-off-date was necessary to award the benefits. Moreover, the retirement benefits are disbursed from the Grant-in-aid fund allotted to every Commissions. Increasing the benefit period will cause hardship to the resources of the Commission and will mount the revenue expenditure of the State. 6. There are several pension schemes initiated by the Government, for various sections of the society, such as Welfare Pension, Welfare Board Pension, Old age pension considering the welfare of the people of the State as a whole. These pension schemes cannot be equated with the Statutory/Contributory Pension given to the Government employees selected on W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -8- prescribed norms and retiring after duly approved Government Service. Hence, the retirement benefits. sanctioned by Exhibit Pl Government Order cannot be equated with service pension benefits. 7. It is to be noted that when the petitioners were joined the Consumer Redressal Forum, the Pension Scheme for Statutory Commission was not existent and they entered service in full cognizance of it. Retirement benefits to members of Statutory Commissions was a fresh policy after taking into account numerous requests seeking to extend the benefit of monthly pension. 8. It is respectfully submitted that extending cut-off-date beyond 10 years and bringing large number of beneficiaries under its fold would cause huge financial liabilities to the State. As a matter of fact, these Statutory Commissions have come into existence decades ago and hundreds of members have already worked and retired from various Commission. There are 14 Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums functioning in our State and hundreds of legal graduates have already served in them. Considering the aforesaid facts, extending monthly retirement benefits to all of them without a cut-off-date would place enormous burden on the public exchequer. 9. The decision to fix a cut-off-date was not arbitrary but one arrived at after taking into account of the magnitude of present and future financial implications of the case. The financial prudence inherent in the decision to fix a cut-off-date W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -9- was a policy decision taken after due deliberation by the Cabinet of Ministers. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in All India Reserve Bank retired Officers Associations & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, 1992 KHC 625 considered the legal impact in fixing cutoff-date for granting pension. After taking into account of the Judgment of the 5 judges of the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara & Others Vs. Union of India, 1983 KHC 325 has held that the Court do not find any substance in the allegation that the cut-off-date had been arbitrarily fixed by the bank authority or the Central Government. In the above said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the cut-off-date fixed by the authority for granting pensionary benefits. In Nakkara case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made a distinction between the liberalization of an existing benefit and introduction of a totally new scheme. In the above Judgment, the Apex Court added that when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which has connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. On such consideration may be the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme. That is why in Nakkara's case this Court drew a distinction between continuance of an exiting scheme in its liberalized form and introduction of a wholly new scheme; in the case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -10- uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a cut-off-date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality in treatment unless there is a strong rationale discernible for so doing and the same can be supported on the ground that it will subserve the object sought to be achieved. But in the case of a new scheme, in respect whereof the retired employees have no vested right, the employer can restrict the same to certain class of retirees, having regard to the fact situation in which it came to be introduced, the extent of additional financial burden that it will throw, the capacity of the employer to bear the same, the feasibility of extending the scheme to all retirees regardless of the dates of their retirement, the availability of records of every retiree, etc.” ## 6. After hearing the parties and considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as hereunder:- “14. The question of sustainability of cut-off date in the matter of extending service benefits including retirement benefits, has been clearly answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in **D. S. Nakara and others** (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that when an existing Scheme is modified introducing more benefits, then in such cases, the new benefits should be made available to all employees enjoying the benefit of the Scheme ordinarily. However, when a new Scheme is introduced, the governmental authorities have a right to consider W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -11- various aspects including the financial burden on the public exchequer and availability of funds and fix a cut-off date for beneficiaries. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the issue of cutoff date again in the judgment in **All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others** (supra). Placing reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in **D. S. Nakara and others** (supra), the Apex Court held as follows:- “10. Nakara's judgment (AIR 1983 SC 130) has itself drawn a distinction between an existing scheme and a new scheme. Where an existing scheme is revised or liberalised all those who are governed by the said scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberalisation and if the State desires to deny it to a group thereof, it must justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 and must show that a certain group is denied the benefit of revision/liberalisation on sound reason and not entirely on the whim and caprice of the State. The underlying principle is that when the State decides to revise and liberalise an existing pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme. That is why in W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -12- Nakara's case this Court drew a distinction between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalised form and introduction of a wholly new scheme; in the case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a cutoff date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality in treatment unless there is a strong rationale discernible for so doing and the same can be supported on the ground that it will subserve the object sought to be achieved. But in the case of a new scheme, in respect whereof the retired employees have no vested right, the employer can restrict the same to certain class of retirees, having regard to the fact-situation in which it came to be introduced, the extent of additional financial burden that it will throw, the capacity of the employer to bear the same, the feasibility of extending the scheme to all retirees regardless of the dates of their retirement, the availability of records of every retiree, etc. It must be realised that in the case of an employee governed by the CPF scheme his relations with the employer come to an end on his retirement and receipt of the CPF amount but in the case of an employee governed under the pension scheme his relations with the employer merely undergo a change but do not snap altogether. That is the reason why this Court in Nakara's case (AIR 1983 SC 130) drew a distinction between liberalisation of an existing benefit and introduction of a totally new scheme. In the case of pensioners it is necessary to revise the pension periodically as the continuous fall in the rupee value and the rise in prices of essential commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount but that is not the case of employees governed under the CPF scheme, since they had received the lump sum payment which they were at liberty to invest in a manner that would yield optimum return which would take care of the inflationary trends. This distinction between those belonging to the pension scheme and those belonging to the CPF scheme has been rightly emphasised by this Court in Krishena's case (AIR 1990 SC 1782) (supra).” W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -13- 16. Ext.P1 and P2 Government Orders undoubtedly introduce a new Scheme. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners, who have retired much earlier than the introduction of the new Scheme, cannot insist that they should also be granted the benefit of the new Scheme. It has to be noted that the petitioners accepted the assignment to function as members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, knowing that their engagement is not pensionable. 17. The judgment in **S. R. Dhingra and others** (supra) cannot help the petitioners because it was a case where there was an existing Scheme for granting running allowance to the running staff of railways and when amendments were made enhancing the percentage of running allowance for the purpose of computation of pension, the railways fixed the cut-off date. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that introduction of such cut-off date is discriminatory. But, it has to be noted that in **S. R. Dhingra and others** (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with an amendment to an existing Scheme wherein the cut-off date was introduced. In the case of the petitioners herein, the claim is for a retrospective operation of a newly introduced Scheme. 18. The judgment in **Mohammad Basheer A.** (supra) of a Division Bench of this Court will not be of any avail to the petitioners, since the said judgment also was considering changes in existing scheme/government orders, for the purpose of counting past service of government employees in public sector undertakings. In the judgment of this Court in **Avirah C.A. and others** (supra), this Court held that there cannot be a cut-off date W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -14- to divide a homogenous group. In the said case, the Management of Canara Bank introduced a pension scheme for employees who were in service of the bank on or after 01.01.1986. As regards employees who were compulsorily retired, the Scheme provided that only employees compulsorily retired on or after 01.11.1993 would be eligible for pension at a rate not less than 2/3rd. The petitioner therein was an employee who was compulsorily retired before 01.11.1993. This Court held that after fixing a cut-off date 01.01.1986 for introduction of the pension scheme, the bank authorities were not justified in dividing the employees who were compulsorily retired before and after 01.11.1993 and it amounts to division of a homogenous group, which has no rational or nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is in such circumstances that this Court held that the cut-off date of 01.11.1993 is arbitrary and discriminatory. The said judgment would not be of any help to the petitioners. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners further urged that when Ext.P1 G.O. dated 28.11.2016 has admittedly given retrospective operation granting pension benefits to retired Members also, the Government ought not have created an artificial distinction between Members appointed before 01.01.2006 and Members appointed thereafter for the purpose of grant of pension. 20. But, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in **Nakara's case** (supra) and also in **All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others** (supra) that when an employer introduces an entirely new Scheme which has no connection with W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -15- any existing Scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process and one such consideration may be the financial implications of the Scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Therefore, it is evident that when introducing a new Scheme, the Government is at liberty to fix a cut-off date even if the new Scheme is made retrospectively operational. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merits in the contentions of the petitioners. These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.” 7. Mr. M. R. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, made submissions on the grounds raised, and contended that financial constraint cannot be a reason to discriminate appellants, who form a class by themselves, whether they are appointed on or after 01.01.2006, in statutory commissions, and hence the cut off date is illegal. 8. Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader, argued to sustain the impugned judgment, and reiterated that the Government have considered all tenable grounds, while issuing Ext. P1 Government Order dated 28.11.2016. 9. He submitted that even in **D. S. Nakara's case** , the Hon'ble W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -16- Supreme Court has recognized the power of the Government to fix a cut off date, while a new scheme is introduced. 10. He further submitted that the writ court has considered the issues with reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and rightly declined the prayers sought for and therefore the well considered judgment does not require any interference. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. Exhibit P1 Government Order dated 28.11.2016, granting retirement benefit to Non-Governmental members, appointed as members of Statutory Commissions, is as follows:- ## “ **GOVERNMENT OF KERALA** ## **ABSTRACT** ## **Finance – Orders are issued granting retirement benefits to non-Government officials who are appointed as members of the statutory Commission** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ## **Finance (Welfare Wing) Department** GO (print) No.175/2016/Fin. Thiruvananthapuram, 2016 November 28 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The government has received a number of applications seeking retirement benefits for non-government officials who are appointed as members of the Statutory Commissions. The W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -17- Government examined the matter in detail and on the basis of which it has made an order granting retirement benefits to nonGovernment officers who are appointed as members of the Statutory Commissions subject to the following rates and conditions. ## **ORDER** |**Eligibility Term of Service**|**Monthly retirement benefit**<br>**(Rs.)**| |---|---| |Within 2 to 3years|Rs. 7000/-| |Within 3 to 4years|Rs. 8000/-| |Within 4 to 5years|Rs. 9000/-| |Fiveyears and above|Rs. 10,000/-| 1. Members who are or not Government officials appointed to the statutory commissions on or after 1/1/2016 are entitled to get the retirement benefits. The monthly retirement benefit does not have retrospective effect. 2. The relief declared from time to time, the minimum pension and pension are not applicable to the said retirement benefit. 3. The minimum qualifying service period required for retirement benefit is two years. 4. The Administrator / Controlling Officer of the Commission shall take steps to distribute the retirement benefit from the respective commissions' Grant-in-Aid amount. By order of the Governor, Dr. KM Abraham Additional Chief Secretary (Finance)” ## 13. We have considered similar issues in W. A. No. 1109 of 2021, and giving due consideration, on 21.10.2021, held thus:- “15. Admittedly, when the appellant was appointed as a member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Kannur, W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -18- pension scheme was not in vogue. Government have made it clear that statutory commissions were established in Kerala from 1996 onwards and members have been appointed. Hundreds of such members have retired. It is further contended that as regards Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, there are 14 such forums. Extending pension to the retired members would be a financial burden to the State exchequer. 16. Even in **Nakara's case,** we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme, which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. In the case on hand, one among the consideration is financial aspect and burden of the employer. As rightly pointed out by the State, it is not a continuing scheme, but a new pension scheme introduced, with a cut off date. 17. Besides when a new scheme is introduced financial constraint is a valid reason to fix a cut off date, and persons who had retired before a cut off date form a separate class. Reference can be made to few decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) In **State of Rajasthan and another v. Amrit Lal Gandhi and Others** reported in **[(1997) 2 SCC 342]** , at paragraphs 16 and 17, Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:- “16. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the present case, we find no justification for the High Court having substituted the date of 1.1.1986 in lieu of 1.1.1990. It is evident that for introducing a pension scheme, which envisaged W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -19- financial implications, approval of the Rajasthan Government was required. In the letter of 16.4.1991, written to the Vice-Chancellors of different universities of Rajasthan, it was stated as follows: "As per the direction in regard to the aforesaid subject, the State Government has decided to introduce Pension Scheme in the Universities of the State w.e.f. 1.1.1990. In this regard the State Legislature has passed University Pension Rules and General Provident Fund Rules. Therefore, by enclosing a copy of University Pension Regulations and General Provident Fund Regulations with this letter, it is requested that by obtaining approval of the competent body or syndicate of the University, these Regulations be implemented in the University together and necessary information regarding implementation be intimated." 17. The Syndicate and Senate of the University, when they had forwarded their recommendations in 1986, did not contain a specific date with effect from which the pension scheme was to be made applicable. Their recommendations were subject to approval. The approval was granted by the Government, after the State Legislature had passed University Pension Rules and General Provident Fund Rules. The Government had stated in its affidavit before the High Court that the justification of the cutoff date of 1.1.1990 was "wholly economic". It cannot be said that the paying capacity is not a relevant or valid consideration while fixing the cut-off date. The University could, in 1991, validly frame Pension Regulations to be made applicable prospectively. It, however, chose to give them limited retrospectively so as to cover a larger number of employees by taking into account the financial impact of giving retrospective operation to the Pension Regulations. It was decided that employees retiring on or after W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -20- 1.1.1990 would be able to exercise the option of getting either pension or provident fund. Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a cut-off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ petitions and substituting the date of 1.1.1986 for 1.1.1990.” (ii) In **State of Punjan and Others v. Amar Nath Goyal and Others** reported in **[(2005) 6 SCC 754]** , at paragraphs 26 and 37, Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:- “26. It is difficult to accede to the argument on behalf of the employees that a decision of the Central Government / State Governments to limit the benefits only to employees, who retire or die on or after 1.4.1995, after calculating the financial implications thereon, was either irrational or arbitrary. Financial and economic implications are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administration of the Government, at the Centre or at the State level. ## xxxxxxx 37. In the instant case before us, the cut-off date has been fixed as 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. Consequently, we reject the contention that the fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14.” (iii) In **Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others v.** **N. Subbarayudu and others** reported in **[(2008) 14 SCC 702]** , at paragraphs 5 to 9, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:- “5. 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 view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -21- 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 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). 6. No doubt in D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the 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). 7. 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 authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection. 8. 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 vs. Ramjee Prasad [1990(3) SCC 368], Union of India & 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] (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 W. A. No. 1682 of 2021 -22- 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. 9. As has been held by this Court in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. vs. Chander Hass & Anr. [(2008) 3 SC 221] and in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi [2008 (2) JT 639], the Court must maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain.” As decisions considered in W. A. 1109 of 2021 squarely applies to the case on hand, submissions made and decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants are inappropriate. We are of the view that the appellants have not made out a case for interference. Writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE Eb