vil Appeal Nos
2403 05 of 1989 From Orders Nos
568 to 57088 A dated 31101988 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Appeal No CA No 808 to 810 of 1987 A and CMisc
No 390 of 1987 A SK Dholakia and SK Kulkarni for the Appellant
Kapil Sibal Additional Solicitor General P Parmeswa ran and Mrs R Rangaswamy for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
All these appeals under Sec
130e of the hereinafter referred to as the Act are directed against the common order made by the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi dated 311088 in CA Nos
808 to 8 1087 A Brief facts of the case are that Ms Sharp Business Machines Pvt Ltd Bangalore hereinafter referred to as the company is a small scale manufacturing unit duly regis tered as such since 1984
The company had started the phased manufacture of plain paper copiers and obtained a licence in this regard dated 251186 for Rs494500 from the licens ing authority
The company imported components and consuma bles in SKDCKD for plain paper copiers
Three consignments were imported from Ms Paralax Industrial Corp Hongkong under airways bill numbers 098 4960 3120 098 4960 3116 and 098 4960 3105 all dated 21187
The goods were re ceived at the air cargo complex Bangalore
The company sought the clearance of the imported goods under bills of entry Nos
2044 2045 and 2046 all dated 3287
Similarly the goods were also imported from Ms Alpha Papyrus Trading Co Pvt Ltd Singapore under airway bill No 098 4925 4914 dated 19287
the clearance for this consignment was sought under bill of entry No 4993 dated 11387
The company had declared the value of each of the consignments at Rs32182 Rs43359 Rs5412 and Rs18659 respectively in respect of the above mentioned bills of entry Nos 2044 2045
2046 and 4993
The total value declared was Rs99612 under all the four bills
32 Proceedings were held before the Appraiser of Customs air cargo complex Bangalore for verification of the goods and their valuation etc
and the statements of the company s Managing Director Sh
Sadanand were also recorded on 1128710387 and 18387 under Sec
108 of the Act
The Collector of Customs issued a notice to the company under Sec
124 of the Act on 4387 relating to the first consign ment
In the said notice it was stated that 4 items were not covered by the licence and the same were liable for confis cation
However
on 30387 the Collector issued another notice in supersession of the earlier notice dated 4387
Notice was also issued on the same date in respect of bill of entry dated 11387
By the said notices the Collector proposed to enhance the value of the goods imported and further proposed to confiscate the entire goods imported and also to levy a fine and other penalties
The company was accused of misdescription of the goods misdeclaration of value suppression of the relationship with the suppliers suppression of the place of origin of goods etc
The Collector by his order dated 13487 decided all the points against the company
The Collector held that the quotations given by Ms Shun Hing Technology Ltd along with the application for approval of their PMP during July 1986 should be taken as the correct value of the goods imported
and the plea of the company that it had received a special discount in view of the bulk purchases and promise of future purchases was not accepted
The Collector in these circumstances determined the price of the goods at Rs715485 for the purposes of Sec
141 of the Act
The Collector thus held that there was a misdeclaration of the value to the tune of Rs615873 and the duty payable there on would be Rs109622820p
The Collector further held that the entire goods imported were liable to confiscation under Sec
111m of the Act
The Collector also held that the goods imported were fully finished copiers in SKDCKD form and as such there was a misdeclaration that the import ed goods were only parts of the copiers
The Collector also held that description of most of the items in the invoices had been deliberately manipulated to suit the description in the licence
The goods covered by three bills 2044 2045 and 2046 were held to be one consignment and one AWB and thus viewed as one consignment it amounted to the import of ten copiers
The goods imported under the 4th bill No 4993 were four fully finished copiers in SKDCKD form
The Collector further held that in terms of note i to Imports Control Order
1955 and Customs Tarrif Act 1975 these goods will be deemed to be filly assembled copiers for the purpose of valuation and licence
Thus the goods imported as 33 fully assembled copiers were not permissible to be imported and this was a clear violation of the Act and the terms of the licence
It was also held in the alternative that even if all the parts imported were viewed individually none of the items tally with the licence
The Collector in this regard gave detailed reasons for arriving at this conclu sion
The Collector also held that the value of the parts imported for the purposes of Sec
141 of the Act would be Rs563332 whereas the importers were permitted to import goods worth Rs494500
There was thus an excess of Rs68832 and as such the goods were liable to confiscation under Sec
IIId of the Act
The Collector in these circum stances passed an order for confiscation of the entire goods with an option to the company to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs3 lacs
The Collector also imposed a fine of Rs1 lac on the company and Rs 1 lac on Sh
Sadanand the Manag ing Director of the Company
The company filed two appeals aggrieved against the common order of the Collector relating to both the notices and a separate third appeal was preferred by the Managing Director before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal
The Tribunal dismissed all the three appeals by a common order dated 311088
The company and the Managing Director aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal have filed the above mentioned three appeals before this Court
One of the arguments raised before the Tribunal was that the Collector erred in treating SKDCKD parts of the copiers imported as assembled copiers for the purpose of Schedule I to the Imports Control Order
1955 and the case Union of India vs Tarachand Gupta  Bros  applied on all force to the instant case
The Tribunal in this regard set aside the finding recorded by the Collector and placing reliance on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Collector of Customs Calcutta vs Misuny Electronic Works held that one has to look into the re spective licence and not to the fact that if all the con signments covered by all the bills of entry are assembled together there will be complete machines
The Tribunal however upheld the other findings recorded by the Collector to the effect that even if all the imported parts contained in SKDCKD packs of copiers were viewed individually the licence produced was not valid for any of the items import ed
Tribunal thus held that the Collector was right in holding that the imported goods were not covered by the valid licence
The Tribunal also held that the Collector was right in rejecting the price shown by the company in the invoices
The Tribunal also rejected the contention made by the counsel for the 34 company that the valuation made by the Collector was exorbitant
As regards the question of imposing fine and penalty also the Tribunal found the order of the Collector as correct
and did not find any cogent reason to interfere in the order of the Collector
We have heard Mr Dholakia for the appellants and Mr Kapil Sibley learned Addl
Solicitor General for the re spondents
It was argued by Mr Dholakia that the Tribunal commit ted a serious error in holding that the invoices submitted by the company were undervalued and could not be relied upon for determining the correct value of the goods imported
It was contended that the Collector Customs was not correct in determining the value of the imported goods on the basis of the quotations of Ms Shun Hing Technology Ltd Hongkong
The quotation of Shun Hing indicated prices at Hongkong and not the place of importation
There was no other material on record to determine the value of the imported goods
It was thus contended that in the absence of any other relevant material the invoice price has to be taken as the basis for valuation
It was also submitted that there was no justifi cation in discarding the price shown in the invoices which contained the correct value of the goods imported and in case of Customs authorities were not placing reliance on such prices mentioned in the invoices
then the burden lay on the Customs department to find out the correct value of the goods by collecting material and other adequate evidence before enhancing the value of the imported goods
The onus to prove the charge of undervaluation against the company was on the Customs department and the evidence relied upon by them as contained in the adjudication order
is not at all sufficient to discharge that onus
It was further argued that any reliance placed on the quotations furnished at the time of submitting the application for grant of licence was wholly erroneous
At the time of submitting the application for grant of licence the prices are quoted for fixing the upper limit of the value of the licence
When the actual purchase transactions were entered into the company negoti ated for the price and having regard to the quantum of purchase and the prospects of future sales the company was given 25   count by the suppliers
It was also submitted that the prices quoted by Ms Shun Hing Technology Ltd Hongkong were not the value of the components imported by the company in SKDCKD form of plain paper copiers
Thus any price quoted by Ms Shun Hing can never form any basis for arriving at a proper and correct valuation of the goods imported by the company in the present case
35 On the other hand it was submitted by the learned Addl
Solicitor General that it has been admitted by Sh
PN Sadanand Managing Director of the company in his statement dated 10387 that the goods imported in the present case by the company were of Japanese origin and manufactured by Ms Matushita Electric Company Ltd Japan
Ms Shun Hing Technology Ltd Hongkong were the authorised agents of Ms
Matushita Electric Co Ltd Japan who are the manufactur ers of Panasonic copies
He further admitted that normally the Panasonic copies were supplied to Hongkong in fully assembled form and then they were dismantled in Hongkong by the agents and thus supplied in India in SKDCKD form
Sadanand admitted to have visited Hongkong during January 1987 alongwith his Engineer Sh
KS Radhakrishan for pur chase of 10 copiers 6 Nos
Model EP 1300 and 4 Nos
Model EP 2625 and that he alongwith the Engineer dismantled the fully assembled copiers
It was submitted that the goods contained in the cartons comprised of all the parts required for full and complete assembly of copiers
At the time of examination of the goods covered by Bill of Entry No 4993 dated 11387 it was found that out of the six cartons four cartons were the original cartons used for packing fully finishedassembled copiers Model EP 2625
The descrip tion model number brand manufacturer and country of originmanufacture of the copier viz
Plain Paper Copier EP 2625 Panasoni Matushita Electric Co Ltd and Japan respec tively were clearly marked on these four cartons one set of cassettes trays covers one drum one developer unit and a bottle of developer
It was thus argued that the original packing cartons used for packing fully finished copiers are normally supplied only if fully finished copiers are purchased
It was submitted that the adjudicating au thority has given detailed reasons for showing that the goods imported were not components of plain paper copiers as declared
In fact the company had purchased 14 fully fin ished copiers 10 in Hongkong and 4 in Singapore and had then dismantled for importing the same in the guise of components of copiers
The company had submitted application for ap proval of their phased manufacturing programme to the Devel opment Commissioner Small Scale Industries Govt
of India New Delhi in July 1986 and alongwith this application they had also submitted the quotations received by them from Ms Shun Hing Technology Ltd Hongkong which covered all the items imported except a few items like toner drum and table for model FP 2625
The company in the present case not only violated the terms and conditions of licence but also com mitted a complete fraud in importing fully finished copiers which was a totally prohibited item in the guise of sepa rate components and accessories by dismantling the fully finished copiers
In the above 36 circumstances the adjudicating authority was fully justified in not believing the value mentioned in the invoices and in placing reliance on the prices mentioned in the quotations given by Ms Shun Hing Technology Ltd Hongkong
It was further argued by Mr Sibbal that the prices quoted by Ms Shun Hing were based on the prices given by the manufactur ers ie Ms
Matushita Electric Co Ltd Japan and there was no question of supplying the components of the copiers on a lesser price than given by the manufacturers them selves
The company had a special relationship with Ms Shun Hing Technology Ltd Hongkong as a sort of collabora tor with no formal agreement and that Ms Paralax Industri al Corp Hongkong were in turn agents of Ms Shun Hing Technology Ltd Hongkong
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
Section 14 of the Act provides for valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment
Section 141 which is relevant for our purposes reads as under 14
Valuation of goods for purposes of assessment 1 For the purposes of the 51 of 1975 or any other law for the time being in force whereun der a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by refer ence to their value the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation as the case may be in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer for sale Provided that such price shall be calculated with reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is presented under Section 46 or a shipping bill or bill of export as the case may be is presented under Section 50 According to the above provision the value of the goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of interna tional trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer for sale
In the present case the 37 company itself had produced a copy of the quotations re ceived by them from Ms Shun Hing Technology Ltd Hongkong in respect of the copiers and other items imported alongwith their application for approval of their phased manufacturing programme
The company itself having produced these quota tions they cannot dispute the correctness of the prices mentioned therein
The company has not only not disputed the correctness of these quotations but has not produced any other material on record to show that the value mentioned in the invoices was the correct market value of the goods imported at the relevant time
The adjudicating authority in these circumstances was perfectly justified in taking the prices mentioned in the quotations as a basis for determin ing the correct value of the imported goods
Mr Dholakia next contended that the Tribunal itself had set aside the finding of the adjudicating authority on the question of treating SKDCKD packs of the copiers imported comprised of all the 100 components of copiers
The company had tried to practice a fraud in defeating the import policy itself
The intention and purpose of the import policy was to give incentive and encouragement to the new entrepreneurs establishing small scale industries and in the first phase to import 62 of the components of the copiers and the balance of 38 was to be manufactured by them indigenously
According to the import policy this percentage of 62 was to be reduced in the subsequent years
The import policy was not meant for such entrepreneurs who instead of importing 62 of the components imported 100 of the components of a fully finished and complete goods manufactured by a foreign country
It is an admitted position that fully finished plain paper copiers were a prohibited item for import and thus the device adopted by the company in the present case was a complete fraud on the import policy itself
Apart from the above circumstances in our view the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the finding of the adjudicating authority and in taking the view that one has to look into the respective licence and not to the fact that if all the consignments covered by all the bills of entry assembled together there will be a full and complete machinery
It is an admitted position that goods covered by the three bills of entry Nos 2044 2045 and 2046 were all dated 3287 and had been shipped from Hongkong on the same day ie on 21187
The entire goods had arrived on the same day and by the same flight on 30th January 1987
The goods covered under the three bills of entry have been supplied by the same supplier viz Ms Paralax Industrial Corp Hong kong
The goods covered by these bills of entry are ten numbers 38 copiers in SKDCKD condition accessories spares consuma bles and excess items
The goods covered by the 4th bill of entry are four numbers copiers in SKDCKD condition and consumables
the licence produced is valid for certain components and is not valid for fully assembled copiers
The fully assembled copiers are the end products of the import ers and hence cannot be imported by them
Plain Paper Copi ers are electronic equipments
The case Union of India vs Tara Chand Gupta  Bros supra lends no assistance to the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case
In the above case Tara Chand  Bros held an import licence dated July 10 1956 permitting them to import parts and accessories of motorcycles and scooters as per Appendix XXVI of the Import Policy Book for July December 1956
Under the said licence the respondents in that case imported certain goods which arrived in two consignments each containing 17 cases by two different ships
According to the respondents the goods so imported by them were motorcycle parts which their licence authorised them to import
The Customs authorities on the contrary held on the examination of the goods that they constituted 51 sets of Rixe Mopeds complete in a knocked down condition
After holding an inquiry the Deputy Collec tor directed confiscation of the said goods with an option to the respondents to pay certain sums in lieu of confisca tion and also personal penalties
That order was passed on the basis that the goods imported were not parts and acces sories of motorcycles and scooters presumably under entry 295 of the Schedule to the Import Control Order but were motorcyclesscooters in completely knocked down conditions prohibited under remark II against entry 294 a licence in respect of goods covered by it would authorise import of motorcycles and scooters
The Deputy Collector held that though the goods were not in completely knocked down condi tion it made no difference as the tyres tubes and saddles were easily obtainable in India and their absence did not prevent the machines being otherwise complete
He also found that there was a trade practice under which traders were supplying motorcycles without tyres tubes and saddles unless the purchaser specially asked for these parts
Ac cording to him the goods could not be regarded as spare parts but were Moped in disassembled condition
 The re spondents in the above case filed a civil suit and the matter went in appeal to the High Court
The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court held that the Collector s jurisdic tion was limited to ascertain whether or not the goods imported by the respondents were spare parts and accessories covered by entry 295 in respect of which they undoubtedly held the licence and therefore he could not have 39 lumped together the two consignments which
though imported under one licence arrived separately and were received on different dates and could not have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had imported 51 Rixe Mopeds in com pletely knocked down condition
The respondents were enti tled to import the said goods and therefore
Section 1678 of the Sea did not apply and the respondents consequently could not have been held guilty of breach either of that Section or Section 3 of the Imports  Exports Control Act
It was further held that the decision of this Court in Girdhari Lal Bansi Dhar vs Union of India  did not over rule but only distinguished judgment in DP Anand vs Mls
TM Thakore  Co CA No 41959 decided on August 17 1960 HC and therefore the binding force of that decision remained unshaken
The Union of India came in appeal to this Court by grant of certificate
This Court held as under Under entry 295 except for rubber tyres and tubes for whose import a separate licence could be obtained under entry 41 of Part V there are no limitations as to the number or kind of parts or accessories which can be imported under a licence obtained in respect of the goods covered thereunder
Prime facie an importer could import all the parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters and it would not be a ground to say that he has committed breach of entry 295 or the licence in respect of the goods described therein that the parts and accessories imported
if assem bled would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
3There are no remarks against entry 295
as there are against entry 294 that a licence in respect of goods cov ered by entry 295 would not be valid for import of spares and accessories which if assembled would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Apart from that the goods in question did not admittedly contain tyres
tubes and sad dles so that it was impossible to say that they constituted motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
The first two could not be imported and were in fact not imported because that could not be done under the licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 which expressly prohibited their import and a separate licence under entry 41 of Part V would be necessary
The third namely
saddles were not amongst the goods imported
No doubt there was firstly a finding by the Collector that a trade practice prevailed under which motor cycles and scooters 40 without tyres tubes and saddles could be sold
Secondly
the tyres and tubes could be had in the market here and so also saddles so that if an importer desired he could have sold these goods as motor cycles and scooters in CKD condi tion
The argument was that since there was a restriction in entry 294 against imports of motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition the importer could not be allowed to do indirectly what he could not do directly
The argument apparently looks attractive
But the question is what have the respondents done indirectly what they could not have done directly
In the absence of any restrictions in entry 295 namely that a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 would not be valid for import of parts and accessories which
when taken together
would make them motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
the respond ents could import under their licence all kinds and types of parts and accessories
Therefore the mere fact
that the goods imported by them were so complete that when put to gether would make them motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
would not amount to a breach of the licence or of entry 295
Were that to be so the position would be anoma lous as aptly described by the High Court
Suppose that an importer were to import equal number of various parts from different countries under different indents and at different times and the goods were to reach here in different con signments and on different dates instead of two consignments from the same country as in the present case
If the conten tion urged before us were to be correct the Collector can treat them together and say that they would constitute motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Such an approach would mean that there is in entry 295 a limitation against importation of all parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters
Under that contention even if the importer had sold away the first consignment or part of it it would still be possible for the Collector to say that had the importer desired it was possible for him to assemble all the parts and make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condi tion
Surely such a meaning has not to be given to entry 295 unless there is in it or in the licenee a condition that a licensee is not to import parts in such a fashion that his consignments different though they may be when put togeth er would make motor cycles and 41 Scooters in CKD condition
Such a condition was advisedly not placed in entry 295 but was put in entry 294 only
The reason was that import of both motor cycles and scooters as also parts and accessories thereof was permitted of the first under entry 294 and of the other under entry 295
A trader having a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 294 could import assembled motor cycles and scooters but not those vehicles in CKD condition unless he was a manufacturer and had obtained a separate licence therefore from the Controller of Imports who as aforesaid
was autho rised to issue such a licence on an ad hoc basis
Thus the restriction not to import motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition was against an importer holding a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 294 under which he could import complete motor cycles and scooters and not against an importer had a licence to import parts and acces sories under entry 295
If Dr Syed Mohammad s contention were to be right we would have to import remark ii against entry 294 into entry 295 a thing which obviously is not permissible while construing these entries
further such a condition if one were to be implied in entry 295 would not fit in as it is a restric tion against import of motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition and not their parts and accessories
There is therefore no question of a licensee under entry 295 doing indirectly what he was not allowed to do directly
What he was not allowed to do directly was importing motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition under a licence under which he could import complete motor cycles and scooters only
That restriction as already observed  applied to a licen see in respect of goods described in entry 294 and not a licensee in respect of goods covered by entry 295
The result is that when the Collector examines goods import ed under a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 what he has to ascertain is whether the goods are parts and accessories and not whether the goods though parts and accessories are so comprehensive that if put together would constitute motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Were he to adopt such an approach he would be acting con trary to and beyond entry 295 under 42 which he had to find out whether the goods imported were of the description in that entry
Such an approach would in other words be in non compliance of entry 295 This Court distinguished the case of Girdhari Lal Bansi Dhar supra by making the following observation It will be noticed that the Bombay decision in DP Anand s case was not dissented from but only distinguished and therefore the High Court in the present case was justified in following it
It is true however that counsel for the appellant there relied on that decision in support of his proposition that a ban on completed article cannot be read as a ban on the importation of its constituents which when assembled would result in the prohibited article and this Court pointed out in answer that in DP Anand s case the imported components could not have when assembled made up the completed article because of the lack of certain essen tial parts which admittedly were not available in India and could not be imported
The real distinction however be tween the two cases was that the decision of the Collector in DP Anand s case was not as was the decision in Gird bari Lal s case under which of the two competing entries the imported goods fell but that the imported goods in question if assembled together would not be the goods covered by the entry and therefore not the goods in respect of which the licence was granted
Further the articles in question even when assembled together were not prohibited articles as in Girdhari Lal s case
Girdhari Lal case is clearly distin guishable because it is not as if motor cycles and scooters are prohibited articles as was the case there
The restric tion is not against licensees importing motor cycles and scooters under entry 294 and parts and accessories under entry 295 but against the licensees under entry 294 import ing motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
The question in the instant case was not under which of the two entries 294 or 295 the goods fell but whether the goods were parts and accessories covered by entry 295
 In our view the Tribunal was not correct in placing reliance on the case Union of India vs Tara Chand Gupta  Bros supra in the facts and circumstances of the present case
In the case before us the 43 import of fully assembled copiers was prohibited
The appel lant was only entitled to import 62 of the components
As already mentioned above the device adopted by the appellant in the present case was a complete fraud on the Import Policy and the appellant was doing indirectly what he was not permitted to do directly
We are further of the view that the facts in the present case are more akin and similar to the facts of the case Girdhari Lal Bansi Dhar vs Union of India supra which was distinguished in the case of Union of India vs Tara Chand Gupta  Bros supra
Mr Dholakia also tried to assail the finding recorded by the Collector and upheld by the Tribunal and argued that the components imported by the appellant tallied with the parts which were permitted under the licence
We do not find any force in this submission
The Collector has given de tailed reasons for holding that the imported goods were not covered by the valid licence and the Tribunal having upheld such finding the same cannot be challenged by the appellant before this Court
Mr Dholakia also submitted that in the facts and cir cumstances of the case the order confiscating the goods and imposing fine and penalty both on the company and Sh
Sada nand the Managing Director was too high and ought to be reduced
We find no force in this submission as well
This is a case where the appellant had not only violated the terms and conditions of the licence but also committed a fraud on the Import Policy itself
Thus we find no ground or justifica tion to reduce the penalty or fine
In the result we find no force in these appeals and the same are dismissed with one set of costs
PSS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The Andhra Pradesh State Government appointed a Pay Revision Commissioner in 1977 for revision of pay scales in respect of its employees
The Commissioner was also directed to review the then existing retirement benefits and to make suitable recommendations regarding extension of retirement benefits
He submitted his report and recommended that the revised scales be made effective from 1478
He also recom mended that the retirement age should be increased from 55 years to 58 years
Accepting the report the State Government implemented the recommendations regarding pay scales effective from 1478
The recommendation regarding increase in retirement age was implemented with effect from 29101979
The State Government promulgated the Revised Pension Rules 1980 which made a distinction between Government servants who were in service as on 29th October 1979 Part I and those Government servants who retireddied in between 1478 and 281079
Part II
By these Writ Petitions the petitioners challenged the Revised Pension Rules 1980 on the ground that the said Rules created two different categories of pensioners with different rates of pension which was completely arbitrary and in violation of this Court s decision in DS Nakara  Ors
vs Union of India  The Respondent State contended that the increase In the age of superannuation could not be implemented retrospec tively 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 certain benefits
It was further contended that since the date of superannua tion was enhanced to 58 years on 29101979 it was neces 6 sary to draw a line between those who retired earlier to that date and those who retired subsequent to 29101979 which was not arbitrary and the rules guarantee 50 of pension to both categories irrespective of the date of retirement
Dismissing the writ petitions HELD 1
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 applicable to such Government servants who were holding pensionable 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 that the age of superannuation for retire ment was increased from 55 years to 58 years wef
29th October 1979
9G H 10A 2
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 are retiring at the superannuation age of 58 years the above formula was calcu lated as 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
10A D DS Nakara  Ors
vs Union of India   distinguished