1984 (9) TMI 295 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Maximum amount of pension under Rule 299(1)(b) of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules.
2. Validity of the amendment to Rule 299(1)(b) restricting the maximum pension.
3. Previous approval of the Central Government for the amendment under Section 115(7) of the States Reorganization Act, 1956.
4. Waiver and estoppel regarding the right to claim pension.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maximum Amount of Pension under Rule 299(1)(b) of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules:
The core issue was whether the maximum pension for superior service under Rule 299(1)(b) was Rs. 1,000 per month or Rs. 857.15 per month. The appellants argued for Rs. 1,000 per month, while the State of Andhra Pradesh contended it was Rs. 857.15 per month. The court examined the historical context of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules and the transition from Osmania Sikka to Indian Government currency. It concluded that the omission of "O.S." before "Rs. 1,000" in Rule 299 was deliberate, intending to provide a higher pension in Indian Government currency.

2. Validity of the Amendment to Rule 299(1)(b) Restricting the Maximum Pension:
The amendment dated February 3, 1971, sought to reduce the maximum pension from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 857.15 per month. The court scrutinized whether this amendment was valid, especially given the requirement of previous approval from the Central Government under Section 115(7) of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. The court found that the amendment was invalid and inoperative as it lacked the necessary prior approval from the Central Government.

3. Previous Approval of the Central Government for the Amendment under Section 115(7) of the States Reorganization Act, 1956:
The State argued that a letter dated April 28, 1973, from the Joint Secretary to the Government of India constituted prior approval. However, the court noted that this letter explicitly stated that no prior approval was necessary, thus not providing the required approval. The court emphasized that the amendment, which retrospectively reduced the pension, required such approval, which was not granted, rendering the amendment invalid.

4. Waiver and Estoppel Regarding the Right to Claim Pension:
The State contended that the appellants had waived their right to claim the higher pension by accepting the lower amount without protest. The court rejected this argument, stating that there was no factual basis for waiver or estoppel. The appellants had promptly filed writ petitions challenging the reduction in their pension, indicating no waiver of their rights.

Conclusion:
The court held that the appellants were entitled to receive a pension based on the maximum amount of Rs. 1,000 per month in Indian Government currency. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was reversed, and the State of Andhra Pradesh was directed to refix the pension accordingly and pay the balance amount within stipulated timelines. The appeals were allowed, and costs were awarded to the appellants.

← Previous Next →