2018 (5) TMI 2169 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of claim for grant of parity to Assistant Public Prosecutors, in the matter of retirement age, with Public Prosecutors in the State - HELD THAT - The fact that Assistant Public Prosecutors are considered as officers of the Court as in the case of Public Prosecutors, can be no basis to equate them with the judicial officers whose method of appointment and conditions of service are distinct. The issue on hand cannot be decided merely on the basis of comparison of the nature of duties and functions of Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors. As regards the disparity in the age of superannuation of the Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed on or before 31st March, 2013 and those who joined on or after 1st April, 2013, the said contention is also devoid of merits inasmuch as the conditions of service of the concerned set of Assistant Public Prosecutors is distinct. In that, those appointed on or before 31st March, 2013 are governed by the statutory pension scheme under the Service Rules as in the case of other government employees; and those appointed on or after 1st April, 2013 are governed by the new Contributory Pension Scheme made applicable to all the government employees and not limited to Assistant Public Prosecutors. Assistant Public Prosecutors are only a small Section of the genre of State Government employees-be it appointed prior to 31st March, 2013 or on or after 1st April, 2013, either governed by statutory Pension Scheme or the new Contributory Pension Scheme, as the case may be. Be it noted, the cut-off date of 1st April, 2013 for introducing the new Contributory Pension Scheme by the State Government is not the subject matter of challenge in the present case. The Respondent State is agreed upon that accepting this offer would create anomaly, discrimination and hardship to the rest of the government employees appointed prior to 1st April, 2013 as they all will retire at the age of 56 years. In any case, this is a policy matter. It is best left to the State Government. It will be a different matter if the Government accepts the offer given by the Appellant on behalf of its members. This appeal is devoid of merits and hence the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's claim for parity in retirement age for Assistant Public Prosecutors.
2. Difference in appointment and conditions of service between Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors.
3. Applicability of pension schemes based on the date of appointment for Assistant Public Prosecutors.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant Association challenged a judgment rejecting their claim for parity in retirement age with Public Prosecutors for Assistant Public Prosecutors. They argued that both roles have similar duties and functions in the criminal justice system, justifying equal retirement age. The Appellant proposed that Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed before a certain date should retire at 60 years like their counterparts appointed after that date, offering to forego pension for the extra service period.

2. The Respondent State contended that the appointment and service conditions for Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors differ significantly. Assistant Public Prosecutors are selected through a competitive process and are entitled to all government employee benefits, unlike Public Prosecutors appointed by the Government for a fixed term without service benefits. The Respondent argued that granting parity in retirement age would create discrimination among government employees.

3. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the qualitative differences in appointment and service conditions between Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors. The Court noted that the nature of duties alone cannot justify parity in retirement age. Additionally, the Court dismissed the argument regarding disparity in retirement age based on the date of appointment, stating that different pension schemes apply to Assistant Public Prosecutors based on their appointment date, which is a policy matter left to the State Government to decide.

4. The Court rejected the appeal, stating it lacked merit, and dismissed it without costs. The Court suggested that if the Appellant wishes to pursue the matter further, they can make a representation to the State authority for consideration, leaving the decision to the government. The Court refrained from issuing any specific direction regarding the retirement age disparity for Assistant Public Prosecutors, emphasizing it as a policy decision within the government's purview.