D.S. Nakara Case - Akanksha - PDF

"Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The classification D.S. Nakara v. must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together f...

"Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The classification D.S. Nakara v. must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from Union of India, those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved 1983 by the statute in question. In other words, there ought to be causal connection between the basis of classification and the object of the statute." Reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia Rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object sought to be achieved by the legislation  The Scheme: Brief The Union of India revised its pension scheme, which differentiated between Facts pensioners based on their date of retirement. This scheme provided liberalized benefits to those who retired after a specified date (April 1, 1979), while Petitioners: those who retired before this date received lower pensions. The first petitioner was a retired civil servant who had retired in 1972 with a monthly pension of ₹935. What was challenged? The second petitioner was a member of the Rule 34 of the Central Services (Pension) armed forces who retired with a monthly Rules, 1972 was challenged. pension of ₹981. Liberalized pension scheme in 1979 that The third petitioner was a society formed under applied to only those who retired after the Societies Registration Act, 1860, aimed at 31/03/1979 (31st April 1979) addressing issues related to pensioners  Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 14. Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Tests under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 1.Test of Reasonable Classification Legal a. Intelligible Differentia b. Rational Nexus Provisions 2.Test of Proportionality Invoked ISSUES 1 Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 The primary issue form a class as a whole? whether the classification of The date of retirement - does it qualify as a pensioners based on their date 2 relevant consideration for eligibility when a of retirement violated Article revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified 14 of the Indian Constitution, date? which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.  Article 14 of the Indian Constitution Rule "The division which classified the pensioners into two classes on the basis of the specified date was devoid of any rational principle and was both arbitrary and unprincipled being unrelated to the object sought to be achieved by grant of liberalized pension." "Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalized pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement." "The choice of specified date is wholly arbitrary and the classification based on the fortuitous circumstance of retirement before or subsequent to the specified date is invalid." There cannot be any classification among the retired Government employees on the basis of date of retirement. Application Pension as a Right: They contended that pensions are not merely gratuities but rights earned through service, intended to provide financial security in old age Arbitrary Classification: The government had not justified why pensions were differentiated based on retirement dates, leading to an arbitrary division among pensioners. Creation of Subclasses: The scheme effectively created subclasses among pensioners, which contradicted the principle of equality as u/Article 14. Conclusion Struck down the unconstitutional provisions, specifically, Rule 34 of the Central Services (Pension)Rules, 1972 - no rational principle, is arbitrary and violates Article 14. Allowed all pensioners to avail the new liberalized pension slab under 1979 rules. Thank YouSubmitted to: Professor Aditi Pateriya Submitted by: Akanksha SAP ID: 500123961 Course: BBA. LL.B (Hons.) B-1