Landmark Judgments: Complete Notes

This note brings together the judgments that shape the law of pensions and the PFRDA Act: the constitutional decisions on pension as a right, the cases on the transition from the Old Pension Scheme to the NPS, and the decisions under analogous laws that guide regulation and enforcement under the Act.

1. Pension as a Right

Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971): pension is property, not a bounty.
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983): pensioners are a homogeneous class; an arbitrary cut-off for liberalised pension violates Article 14.
Krishena Kumar v. Union of India (1990): provident fund and pension retirees are separate classes; Nakara distinguished.
State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (2013): pension and gratuity are property under Article 300A; not to be withheld without law.
State of Rajasthan v. Amrit Lal Gandhi (1997): a cut-off for a new scheme may be valid.
Indian Ex-Services Movement v. Union of India (2022): courts defer to pension policy.

2. The NPS Transition and the OPS

Validity: the NPS and its 1 January 2004 cut-off upheld, applying Krishena Kumar.
Pre-2004 advertisements: litigation led to the OM of 3 March 2023 giving a one-time OPS option.
Union of India v. Pawan Kumar: Delhi High Court (January 2023) held CAPFs entitled to the OPS; stayed by the Supreme Court (July 2023).
Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh (8 September 2026): pre-regularisation service counts, bringing employees under the OPS.
In Re: Refixation of Pension (19 May 2025): High Court judges get full pension; employee's NPS contributions refunded, State share retained.

3. Regulation and Enforcement by Analogy

Purposive powers: Sahara v. SEBI (2012).
Civil penalties: SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund (2006) (no mens rea); Bhavesh Pabari (2019) (discretion and proportionality).
Fair procedure: T. Takano v. SEBI (2022) (disclosure); Maneka Gandhi (1978) (post-decisional hearing).
Search and privacy: Puttaswamy (2017); M.P. Sharma (1954).
Offences by companies: S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals (2005); Aneeta Hada (2012).
Jurisdiction and review: Dhulabhai (1968); L. Chandra Kumar (1997); Indian Express (1985).
Nomination: Sarbati Devi (1984); Shakti Yezdani (2023).

4. The Picture That Emerges

The case law treats pension savings as property protected by the Constitution, while allowing the State wide latitude to design pension schemes and choose cut-off dates. Courts correct unfairness in application, looking at substance over form, but have not disturbed the NPS itself. On regulation, the absence of direct authority under the PFRDA Act means that SEBI jurisprudence, applied by the common Securities Appellate Tribunal, is likely to shape its interpretation.

⚠ Key point

Pension is property (Deokinandan Prasad, Jitendra Kumar Srivastava); arbitrary cut-offs within one class of pensioners fail (Nakara), but contributory and defined benefit schemes are different classes (Krishena Kumar) and new schemes may have cut-offs (Amrit Lal Gandhi). The NPS stands; courts have corrected its application for pre-2004 selections, pre-regularisation service (Satnam Singh, 2026) and High Court judges (2025), while the CAPF ruling was stayed. SEBI-era decisions on penalties, procedure, search, company offences, jurisdiction and nomination guide the Act's enforcement.

5. Related Topics and Provisions

Pension as a right: the constitutional framework
Old Pension Scheme and NPS: the debate
Penalties, adjudication and offences (Sections 28 to 35)
Evaluation of the Act and the way forward