Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair v. Cochin University of Science and Technology
Background
A law professor who had practiced as an advocate for about eight years before joining a university as a lecturer in 1984 sought to have that Bar experience counted toward his pension under a Kerala service rule, which at the time of his appointment allowed such credit. By the time he retired in 2007, however, a 1985 amendment had added a proviso restricting this benefit only to those recruited specifically for law-qualification posts requiring Bar experience, and the university denied him the benefit on this basis, a decision upheld by the Kerala High Court. The professor pointed out that another colleague in an identical situation, Dr. P. Leela Krishnan, had been granted the very same benefit by the same university.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court accepted the general legal principle that pension rules applicable at the time of retirement (not appointment) govern pension calculation. However, it found no justification for the university applying the restrictive proviso to this professor while granting the benefit to a colleague in an identical factual position, both had joined before the 1985 amendment and retired after it, yet were treated differently with no explanation offered by the university. The Court held this selective, unequal application of the rule was arbitrary and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14. It set aside the High Court's judgment, ruled the professor entitled to have his Bar practice counted, and directed the university to recalculate and pay the pension shortfall with 5% annual interest within two months.
Lesson Learnt
Even where a rule change validly limits a benefit, an employer cannot apply that rule inconsistently, granting it to one employee while denying an identical benefit to another in the same position is unconstitutional discrimination, regardless of how the general rule itself is framed.