Case: V. B. Raju And Ors Vs. State Of Gujarat &amp; Ors

1947.Regulation 561 was amended by the President under the provisions of Article 309. The amendment came into force on 12 June, 1956. As a result of the amendment Indian members of the Indian Civil Service who retired or sought retirement were entitled under Regulation 561 to an annuity of Rs.13,333.33 payable in Indian in rupees only. The annuity of Rs.13,333.33 was equivalent to 1000 converted into rupees at the rate of 1sh-6d to a rupee.The amendment Regulation 561 converted the payment of annuity of 1000 at the rate of 1sh-6d to a rupee, that is to say, at the rate which was fixed by the Secretary of State in 1928 and which continued up to 15 August, 1947.The amendment in 1956 delinked the pension to a currency which no longer continued to be legal tender in Indian Treasuries. This was necessary because of the changed conditions flowing from the transfer of power.4. The amendment of Regulation 561 does not infringe the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The amendment makes no distinction in the matter of payment of pension to the members of the Indian Civil Service retiring after 12 June, 1956 irrespective of the fact that they are citizens of India or are of non-Indian domicile if they down their pension in India.5. On or from 12 June, 1956 all members of the Indian Civil Service having their residence in India on retirement are entitled to their authority only in India and in rupees alone.6. Under Regulation 561 and petitioners and the appellant in C.A. 147 of 1971, 2467 and 2468 of 1972 were entitled to an annuity of Rs.13,333.33 subject to reduction for Family Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity.7. Under Section 7 of the 1972 Act the petitioners and the appellants are entitled to an annuity of Rs.13,333.33 subject to reduction of Family Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. The 1972 Act came into force on 1 October, 1972. Section 8 of the Act provides that no former Secretary of State Service Officer shall be entitled, or be deemed ever to have been entitled, to claim (a) pension in sterling; or (b) that his pension shall be paid outside India; or (c) where his pension was expressed in sterling or a fixed sterling minimum was applicable in respect of the pension payable to him, that his pension shall be computed in the rupee equivalent of the amount fixed in sterling at a rate of exchange exceeding the rate of Rs.13,333.33 to 1000 sterling.8. A member of the Indian Civil Services who is also a member of the Indian Administrative Service is entitled to an annuity of Rs.13,333.33 which was equivalent to ?1000 converted into rupees at the rate if Ish-6d to a rupee.9. Article 312A which was introduced by the Constitution (Twenty-eighth Amendment) Act confers power on Parliament to make a law to vary or revoke, whether prospectively or retrospectively, the conditions of service as respect pension of persons who, having been appointed by the Secretary of State or Secretary of State in Council to a Civil Service of the Crown in India before the commencement of this Constitution, retired or otherwise ceased to be in service at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-eighth Amendment) Act, 1972.10. The petitioners and the appellant in C.A.147 of 1971 and C.A. 2467 and 2468 of 1972 all joined the Indian Civil Service after 1921. The pension to which these members of the Indian Civil Service were entitled on 15 August, 1947 has not been altered.11. Shri Raman one of the petitioners appearing in person submitted that the salary, annuity and pension of the members of the Indian Civil Service were, to borrow his words, basic structure which would not be amended by and Act of Parliament. This is only to be stated to be rejected.12. The petitioner Raman in particular and others who supported him contended that officers who belonged to the Indian Civil Service were entitled to payment of annuity by converting ?1000 into Indian currency at the official rate of exchange. The contentions of the petitioners are that it is their basic right to be paid annuity in Indian currency at the official rate of exchange of rupee to a pound. The petitioners submit that these officers are denied such basic rights and it is unconstitutional to deny them these rights. The alleged basic rights are not only absurd but also insupportable in law. When Indian Civil Servants were in the employment of the British Government, they had under Regulations 561 and 983 certain privileges. Even in 1928 the Secretary of State regulated the rate of exchange. On the date of transfer on 15 August, 1947 the officers belonging to the Indian Civil Service were entitled to annuity of Rs.10,666-10-8 which was subject to a minimum of 1000. Officers who received annuity at equivalent Indian currency were paid at the rate of exchange of 1sh-6d to a rupee.13. After the 1956 amendment of Regulation 561 the Indian members of the Indian Civil Service who retired or sought retirement were entitled to an annuity of Rs.13,333.33 which is payable in India in rupees only. The members of the former Indian Civil Service and of the Indian Administrative Service are under the 1972 Act entitled to an annuity of Rs.13,333.33 which is equivalent to 1000 converted into rupees at the rate of 1sh-6d to a rupee. There has been no change. All that has happened as a result of the 1972 Act is to lay down that annuitants are not entitled to claim payment of pension in sterling or outside India or by converting 1000 at the rate of exchange exceeding the rate of exchange of Rupees thirteen and one third to the pound sterling. The annuitants reside in India. Indian currency is the legal tender. There is no constitutional vice in fixing the rate of exchange and the mode of payment by legislation. The petitioners and the appellants have neither right nor merit in the alleged claims.14.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Article 312A which was introduced by the Constitution (Twenty-eighth Amendment) Act confers power on Parliament to make a law to vary or revoke, whether prospectively or retrospectively, the conditions of service as respect pension of persons who, having been appointed by the Secretary of State or Secretary of State in Council to a Civil Service of the Crown in India before the commencement of this Constitution, retired or otherwise ceased to be in service at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twenty-eighth Amendment) Act, 1972.The petitioner Raman in particular and others who supported him contended that officers who belonged to the Indian Civil Service were entitled to payment of annuity by converting ?1000 into Indian currency at the official rate of exchange. The contentions of the petitioners are that it is their basic right to be paid annuity in Indian currency at the official rate of exchange of rupee to a pound. The petitioners submit that these officers are denied such basic rights and it is unconstitutional to deny them these rights. The alleged basic rights are not only absurd but also insupportable in law. When Indian Civil Servants were in the employment of the British Government, they had under Regulations 561 and 983 certain privileges. Even in 1928 the Secretary of State regulated the rate of exchange. On the date of transfer on 15 August, 1947 the officers belonging to the Indian Civil Service were entitled to annuity of Rs.10,666-10-8 which was subject to a minimum of 1000. Officers who received annuity at equivalent Indian currency were paid at the rate of exchange of 1sh-6d to a rupee.After the 1956 amendment of Regulation 561 the Indian members of the Indian Civil Service who retired or sought retirement were entitled to an annuity of Rs.13,333.33 which is payable in India in rupees only. The members of the former Indian Civil Service and of the Indian Administrative Service are under the 1972 Act entitled to an annuity of Rs.13,333.33 which is equivalent to 1000 converted into rupees at the rate of 1sh-6d to a rupee. There has been no change. All that has happened as a result of the 1972 Act is to lay down that annuitants are not entitled to claim payment of pension in sterling or outside India or by converting 1000 at the rate of exchange exceeding the rate of exchange of Rupees thirteen and one third to the pound sterling. The annuitants reside in India. Indian currency is the legal tender. There is no constitutional vice in fixing the rate of exchange and the mode of payment by legislation. The petitioners and the appellants have neither right nor merit in the alleged claims.