1996 INSC 0926
                                           Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan

                                                           Vs

                                         State of Maharashtra and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 9860 of 1996

                                      (K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      15.07.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard both sides.

3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court,
Aurangabad Bench made on 11-11-1993 in Writ Petition No. 3505 of 1993. The appellant was
working as on 1-4-1957 as Peon-cum-Watchman in the Hyderabad Agricultural Committee.
Consequent upon the State's reorganisation, the appellant had gone and joined the service of the
Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti in Jalna District. He retired from service on 1-4-1991 after completing
about 35 years of service. His qualifying service was computed w.e.f. 1-10-1969. He claimed the
service from the date of his appointment. It was denied on the ground that he started contributing
towards provident fund w.e.f. the aforesaid date and, therefore, his pensionary benefit required to be
computed from that date.

4. Clause 23 of Chapter VI in the scheme reads as under :

                  "Qualifying service of a Market Committee employee shall commence from the date
                  he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed or from the date the
                  employer started deducting the PF contribution for the employee whichever is later."

5. A reading clearly indicates that the qualifying service is from the date he takes charge of the post
to which he was first appointed or from the date the employer started deduction of provident fund
from the employee, whichever is later. Pension is not a bounty of the State. It is earned by the
employee for service rendered to fall back, after retirement. It is a right attached to the office and
cannot be arbitrarily denied. Therefore, we read down the rule. We hold that reading the rule which
is 'later' must be read down to whichever is 'earlier'. If so read, the rule is valid. Otherwise, it would
be arbitrary offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr Khanwilkar, the learned counsel for the
respondent, contended that the appellant is not entitled to the DA; on the other hand, the learned
counsel for the appellant contended that pursuant to the order passed by the High Court to pay DA
resolution had already been passed by the Committee and the DA has already been paid to him.

6. The pensionary benefit will be computed from 1-4-1957 within two months from the date of
receipt of this order and payment of arrears be paid accordingly.

7. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.