ition Civil Nos
888 892 of 1987 757 of 1988 and 316 of 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
7 HS Gururaja Rao Mrs C Markandeya and section Markandeya for the Petitioners
Krishnamurthy Iyer P Parthasarthi and TVSN Chari for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
The above mentioned bunch of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the retired Government servants of the Government of Andhra Pradesh having retired in between 1st April 1978 and 28th October 1979
The case of the petitioners is that in pursuance to persistent demands made by the State Govern ment Employees to revise their pay scales the Andhra Pradesh Government by Government Order dated November 3 1977 ap pointed Shri A Krishnaswamy IAS Retd as the Pay Revision Commissioner
By another Government Order dated January 28 1978 the Pay Revision Commissioner was also directed to review the existing retirement benefits inter alia to all employees of the State Government and to examine the question of extension of retirement benefits and make suitable recommendations in that regard
The Pay Revision Commissioner submitted a report comprised of five volumes
The Commission recommended that the date from which the revised scales of pay would be given effect to should be April 1 1978
In Paragraphs 942 to 945 of its report the Pay Revision Commissioner specifically recommended that the age of retirement should be increased from 55 years to 58 years
It has been alleged that so far as the recommenda tions of the Commission in regard to the increased pay scales are concerned the same were accepted and implemented by the State Government wef
April 1 1978
But so far as the recommendation in regard to increase in the age of superannuation from 55 years to 58 years the same was implemented only wef October 29 1979 through GOMS No 283 Finance and Planning
It has also been alleged by the petitioners that the State Government issued GO P No 88 Finance and Planning dated March 26 1980 whereby the Revised Pension Rules 1980 were promulgated
The above rules divided the Government servants for the purpose of pension into two parts Part I applying to all Government servants who were in service on 29th October 1979 and Part II applying to such of the Government servants who retireddied in between 1st April 1978 and 28th October 1979 both dates inclusive
The contention of the petitioners is that by the above Rules two categories of pensioners 8 were created with different rates of pension which is com pletely arbitrary and in violation of the law declared by this Hon ble Court in DS Nakara  Others vs Union of India  The petitioners have therefore prayed that pension rules Part II which has been made ap plicable to Government servants having retired between 1st April 1978 and 28th October 1979 be quashed and it may be directed that they would also be governed by Part I of the Rules which is applicable to those Government servants who were in service on 29th October 1979
The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh
In the counter affidavit it has been stated that Pay Revision Commissioner was appointed to review the structure of different scales of Pay dearness allowance and other compensatory allowance of all categories of employees of the State Government Local Bodies and Aided Institutions as well as work charge establishments
An additional term of reference was added for reviewing the existing retirement benefit of all categories
After care fully considering all the relevant factors the Government implemented the recommendations relating to revision of scales of pay wef
1st April 1978
As regards the age of superannuation the Government of Andhra Pradesh increased the age of superannuation to 58 years wef October 29 1979
This increase in the age of superannuation could not be implemented retrospectively as it would have led to a lot of difficulties but to compensate those who retired after April 1 1978 and before October 29 1979 the Government gave them benefits as under 1 The pension formula was increased from 3380 to 3060 for all those who retired between 141978 and 28101979
This increase was specifically given as they would not have otherwise been entitled to the revised pension formula of 3366 which had been applied only to such Government serv ants who retired after 29101979
2 Formula for calculation of gratuity was increased to 13rd of emoluments for each completed six months period of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 20 months emolu ments and limited to Rs30000
Earlier the formula was 14th of pay for every six months service subject to a maximum of 16 12 times and emoluments limited to Rs30000
3 The Family pension was increased to 30 of the last drawn pay without any maximum limit
Earlier the rates of Family 9 pension were different for different ranges of pay and the minimum was Rs60 and maximum Rs250
It was further submitted in the counter affidavit that the distinction between the pensioners in Part I and II is based on the date of retirement and is clearly connected with the age of superannuation which was raised from 55 years to 58 years
It is not correct to say that the Govern ment had arbitrarily divided the pensioners into two groups
As the date of superannuation was enhanced to 58 years on 29101979 it was necessary to draw a line between those who retired earlier to that date and those who retired subse quent to 29101979
It was pointed out that the pension formula would be 3060 for those who retired between 141978 and 28101979 and their pension worked out on the basis of 3060 of the average emoluments and in respect of those who retired on or after 29101979 it would be worked out as 3366
Thus both the rules guarantee 50 of pension irrespective of date of retirement
It was also pointed out in the counter affidavit that a writ petition civil No 1260585 was filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Government Retired Officers Association and Others vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others on identical grounds and the same was dismissed by this Hon ble Court by an order dated 231987
In the above case it was held that In view of the averments contained in paragraph 2d and 3 of the counter affidavit it is quite clear that the State Government was fully alive to improve the pensionary benefit of those who had already retired prior to October 29 1979 and accordingly enhanced the rates of pension
We are satisfied that there is a discernible basis for differential rates of pension and it cannot be said that such differential rates have no reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved or that they offend Article 14 of the Constitution
The Writ Petition is accord ingly dismissed
We have heard the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the records and the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980
We are fully convinced that the claim of the petitioners is based on a complete misconception of the Rules
A perusal of the Rules clearly goes to show that Part I of the Rules was no doubt made applicable to all Government servants who would retire on or after 29101979 while Part II was made ap plicable to such Government servants who were holding pen sionable posts on 31st March 1978 and who retired between 1st April 1978 and 28th October 1979 and this distinction was necessary in view of the fact 10 that the age of superannuation for retirement was increased from 55 years to 58 years wef
29th October 1979
Howev er all the benefits have been granted to the pensioners like the petitioners who had retired between 141978 and 29101979 in the amount of pension retirement gratuity and family pension as granted to the Government servants falling under Part I So far as the amount of pension is concerned the formula of completed six monthly periods of qualifying service was worked out as 3060 of average emoluments which was equal to 50 of the pay
On account of the fact that the Government servants falling in Part I and retiring at the superannuation age of 58 years the above formula was calcu lated at 3366 which was also 50 of the average emoluments
Similarly in the case of retirement gratuity and family pension no distinction has been made in the case of the two categories of pensioners
This clearly goes to show that neither there is any discrimination nor any disadvantage to the pensioners falling in the category of petitioners and the formula working out the amount of pension is based on a rational principle and it cannot be said that such differen tial rates have no reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved or the same are in any manner violative of article 14 of the Constitution
In view of the circumstances mentioned above the case of DS Nakara  Ors
vs Union of India supra is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and renders no assistance to the petitioners
In the result we find no force in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs
GN Petitions dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner is a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal
In this writ petition he claims equality of the Members of the Administrative Tribunal with the Judges of the High Court or even the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal in the matter of pay and age of superannua tion
The Central Administrative Tribunal Salaries and Allow ances and Conditions of Service of Chairman Vice Chairman and Members Rules 1985 were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 352c of the 
Rule 3 of the Rules specifies Rs8000 pm as the pay of the Vice Chairman and the pay scale of Rs7300 100 7600 pm for a Member
Rule 8 prescribes the age of superannuation for the Chairman and Vice Chairman at 65 and for any other Member 62 years
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that an arbitrary distinction had been made in the conditions of service particularly in regard to pay and age of superannu ation between the Vice Chairman and the Members that the judicial functions discharged by the Vice Chairman and the Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal were the same and therefore the principle of equal pay for equal work applied and on that basis Article 14 had been violated and that the Administrative Tribunal being a substitute for the High Court for adjudicating disputes relating to service matters the Members of the Tribunal should be equated with the High Court Judges for all purposes 947 including their pay and age of Superannuation
SP Sampath Kumar vs Union of India   relied upon
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that all the functions of the Vice Chairman and the Members were not the same in as much as the Vice Chairman in addition to filling the casual vacancy in the office of the Chairman also discharged certain administrative functions entrusted to him by the Chairman
Dismissing the writ petition this Court HELD 1 It is the law enacted by Parliament constitut ing the Administrative Tribunal which has to be first seen for the purpose of ascertaining the real nature and status of the Tribunal and the persons constituting it
1953 E 2 It is not possible for the Administrative Tribunal to shed off or abandon its heritage and substitute its genes with those of its choice of a different heritage
956G 3 There is no ambiguity in the provisions of the  and the exact status and service conditions of the Chairman Vice Chairman and Mem bers of the Administrative Tribunal together with the quali fications for appointment to these offices have been clearly spelt out in the Act
953F 4 From the scheme of the Act and the rules flamed thereunder it is quite clear that their enactment is in the manner laid down in Article 323 A of the Constitution
From the scheme it is evident that the Chairman Vice Chairman and Members are not treated as one class for this purpose by the very enactment which provides for the establishment of the Tribunals
Such elaborate provisions were unnecessary if the Tribunal was to be equated with the High Courts and its members with High Court Judges
1953D 954C 5 Article 323 A and 323 B themselves require the law constituting these Tribunals to provide for the pay and other conditions of service of its Members and therefore the same would he governed in the case of each Tribunal by the provisions of the statute giving birth to the Tribunal
These statutes being different the provisions therein in this behalf can also be different which has been left to the legislative wisdom to decide
955G H 948 6 Equation of the Tribunal with the High Court was only as the forum for adjudication of disputes relating to service matters and not for all purposes such as the one arising for decision in the present case
956C SP Sampath Kumar vs Union of India   distinguished  explained
7 The foundation of initial equality on which the argument of discrimination is based is non existent
The parent statute itself shows that they were not born equals
956E