Analysis of Cut-Off Date for Pension Benefits

Explore the in-depth legal analysis conducted by the court regarding the cut-off date for pension benefits in a recent case. The court’s examination of the reasoning behind establishing specific cut-off dates provides valuable insights into how such decisions are made and their impact on retired employees. Stay informed with our breakdown of this significant legal issue.


  • The respondent-Union filed an Original Application seeking pension benefits for employees who retired before 05.06.1995.
  • The Union argued that the cut-off date was arbitrary and discriminatory based on previous judgments.
  • The appeal was filed by Himachal Road Transport Corporation against the High Court judgment.
  • The Corporation introduced a Pension Scheme in 1995 approved by the Cabinet.
  • The Pension Scheme offered employees the option to choose between the Pension Scheme or the Contributory Provident Fund.
  • The respondent-Union claimed the cut-off date of 05.06.1995 was discriminatory and lacked a reasonable nexus with the objective.
  • The appellant-Corporation adopted Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 for the Pension Scheme.
  • The High Court set aside the Order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 19.06.2001 in OA (D) 237/1996.
  • The Cabinet approved the Scheme on 05.06.1995, giving effect to it from that date.
  • Employees retired before 05.06.1995 were considered a different category by the Tribunal.
  • The High Court, in response to a Civil Writ Petition, quashed the cut-off date of 05.06.1995 for the Pension Scheme implementation.
  • The Scheme notified on 06.10.1995 was declared to apply to members of the respondent-Union and others, with a condition to deposit the amount received under the CPF Scheme within a reasonable time.
  • The Administrative Tribunal’s judgment on 19.06.2001 upheld the appellant’s right to fix the cut-off date for the Pension Scheme introduction.

Also Read: Analysis of Seniority Determination in Armed Forces Personnel Case


  • Employees who retired prior to 05.06.1995 and those presently in service cannot be treated as a homogeneous class.
  • Employees who retired prior to 05.06.1995 by availing the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme constitute a separate class.
  • The cut-off date of 05.06.1995 for the introduction of the Pension Scheme is not discriminatory.
  • The High Court allowed the writ petition without valid reasons according to the appellant.
  • It is not justified for those who availed the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to now claim discrimination in the Pension Scheme.
  • Employers have the discretion to extend further benefits to employees prospectively.
  • The Pension Scheme was approved by the Cabinet on 05.06.1995.
  • There are no valid reasons given by the appellant-Corporation for fixing the cut-off date.
  • The High Court correctly allowed the Writ Petition as there were no grounds for interference.
  • The Pension Scheme was given retrospective effect from 05.06.1995, indicating no reason not to extend benefits to employees who retired earlier.
  • The fixation of the cut-off date on 05.06.1995 is deemed neither arbitrary nor illegal.
  • All employees of the Corporation form one homogeneous class, so there should be no distinction made by the appellant-Corporation among them.

Also Read: Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Conviction


  • The High Court erroneously found no reason for the specific cut-off date of 1-1-1990, despite the approval granted by the Cabinet to the Pension Scheme from 05.06.1995.
  • The Corporation introduced Pension Regulations by notification dated 06.10.1995 with effect from 05.06.1995, based on Cabinet approval.
  • Financial health of the employer is a valid consideration for introducing new schemes and benefits.
  • Employees retiring on or after 1-1-1990 were given the option of pension or provident fund, based on financial impact of the regulations.
  • The distinction between pension retirees and active employees was crucial in determining the homogeneous class for pension benefits.
  • The State Government’s approval for the Pension Scheme was from 01.01.1990, and the High Court’s direction to change it to 01.01.1986 was held as arbitrary and discriminatory by the Court.
  • Financial implications and approval of competent bodies were vital factors in deciding the cut-off date for extending pension benefits.
  • The cases cited by the High Court were deemed irrelevant to the specific issue at hand, according to the Court’s analysis.
  • Validity of cut-off date fixed for grant of benefits has been considered in various cases
  • Financial constraint is a valid ground for fixing a cut-off date
  • Differentiating the case of D.S. Nakara from others, where the classification for pensionary benefits was found to be violative of Article 14
  • In the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association, the fixation of cut-off date for extending benefits was deemed arbitrary and violative of Article 14
  • Fixing a date for grant of benefit must have a nexus with the object sought to be achieved
  • In the case of Subrata Sen and others, it was held that retired employees form a homogeneous class and a cut-off date cannot be used for a one-time benefit like gratuity
  • Rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara has been considerably watered down in subsequent judgments
  • Classification of pensioners based on a cut-off date is impermissible unless founded on a rational principle
  • High Court judgment set aside
  • Cut-off date not fixed arbitrarily
  • Error by High Court in allowing writ petitions
  • Difference in factual background not noticed
  • High Court did not independently consider the issue

Also Read: Constitutional Interpretation on Multi-Member Wards in Municipalities


  • Civil appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the High Court dated 08.01.2009 set aside
  • Civil Writ Petition No 1362 of 2001 dismissed
  • No order as to costs


Case Number: C.A. No.-007230-007230 / 2012

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *