Sita Ram Bansar & Ors. etc. etc. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. etc. etc.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.22517-20 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.96 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 14764, 15213/94, 3806-07 of 1995)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.96 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 14764, 15213/94, 3806-07 of 1995)
Petitioner: Sita Ram Bansar & Ors. etc. etc.
Respondent: State of Punjab & Ors. etc. etc.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.22517-20 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.96 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 14764, 15213/94, 3806-07 of 1995)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.96 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 14764, 15213/94, 3806-07 of 1995)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 27, 1996
Appearances:
Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Non-provincialised employees working in notified municipal committees – Pension scheme applicable from 1.4.1990 to gazetted employees extended in 1994 to non-provincialised employees – Plea of employees retiring before 1.4.90 for pension held to be misconceived as there was no pension scheme till 31.3.90 i.e., at the time of their retirement – Cut off date rational as the pension scheme introduced from that date.
Non-provincialised employees working in notified municipal committees – Pension scheme applicable from 1.4.1990 to gazetted employees extended in 1994 to non-provincialised employees – Plea of employees retiring before 1.4.90 for pension held to be misconceived as there was no pension scheme till 31.3.90 i.e., at the time of their retirement – Cut off date rational as the pension scheme introduced from that date.
Constitution of India
Article 14 – Pension Scheme not applicable to non-provincialised employees retiring before 1.4.90 and no discrimination under Article 14 as they are treated as a class – Pension scheme ex-tended to those who are either in service or retired on or after 1.4.90 and does not suffer from any illegality – Cut off date not arbitrary – Dismissed.
Cases Reffered:
1. Shri M.C. Dhingra v. Union of India & Ors. (JT 1996 (2) SC 463) (Para 3)
2. Union of India v. Shri Deoki Nandan Agarwal JT 1991 (3) SC 608 = ((1992) 1 SCC 323) (Para 3)
3. Shri R.L. Marwah v. Union of India JT 1987 (3) SC 292 = ((1987) 3 SCR 928) (Para 3)
2. Union of India v. Shri Deoki Nandan Agarwal JT 1991 (3) SC 608 = ((1992) 1 SCC 323) (Para 3)
3. Shri R.L. Marwah v. Union of India JT 1987 (3) SC 292 = ((1987) 3 SCR 928) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. These special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on May 10, 1996 in CWP No.14764/94 and batch.
2. The petitioners are non-provincialised employees working in the notified municipal Committees. The Government in notification No.JA-I-DCFA-DLG-91/3958, dated January 25, 1991 have introduced the pension scheme applicable to All India Gazetted Officers and Punjab Civil Services Officers working in the municipalities with effect from April 1, 1990. Subsequently, the matter was consid-ered and the benefit of the pension scheme was extended to the employees who are members of non-provincialised service of the Municipal Committees by notification dated July 28, 1994. The question arose: whether those persons who retired before April 1, 1990 are also entitled to be brought within the pension scheme? Admittedly, they are governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and on retirement, they had withdrawn the contributory Provident Fund in terms of the scheme that was in vogue earlier. The petitioners had filed the writ petitions in the High Court contending that the prescription of a cut-off date, i.e. April 1, 1990, was arbitrary, and denying them the benefit of the pension-ary scheme is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court following its earlier decision rendered in Sham Das Sharma v. State of Punjab dismissed the writ petitions.
3. Shri Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Shri Deoki Nandan Agarwal JT 1991 (3) SC 608 = ((1992) 1 SCC 323), Shri R.L. Marwah v. Union of India JT 1987 (3) SC 292 = = ((1987) 3 SCR 928) and Shri M.C. Dhingra v. Union of India & Ors. (JT 1996 (2) SC 463), the cut off date is arbitrary; the pension-ary benefits should be extended to the retirees prior to the cut off date; otherwise, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. We find no force in the contention. It is true that the pension is not a bounty but a right earned by the persons while in serv-ice. But, unfortunately, the pensionary scheme was not in vogue prior to the retirement of the petitioners. The pension scheme came to be introduced for the first time with effect from April 1, 1990 and it was applied to persons serving the municipalities drawn from All India Service or the Provincial Service. Subse-quently, that was extended to other employees in the non-provin-cial service. The later G.O. also applied to those who retired between April 1, 1990 and July 28, 1994, the date on which the scheme was extended to the non-provincialised employees. In other words, all of them have been treated as a class and no invidious discrimination has been meted out to them. Thus, the date of April 1, 1990 bears rationality, namely, the scheme for the first time was introduced on that date. All those employees who retired prior to that date were treated as a class and those employees either in service or retiring on and after that date have been treated as a separate class and the scheme was extended to it. Thus, we find that there is no illegality in introducing the cut-off date; nor does it violates Article 14. The ratio in the above judgments has no application to the facts in this case.
4. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
1. These special leave petitions have been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on May 10, 1996 in CWP No.14764/94 and batch.
2. The petitioners are non-provincialised employees working in the notified municipal Committees. The Government in notification No.JA-I-DCFA-DLG-91/3958, dated January 25, 1991 have introduced the pension scheme applicable to All India Gazetted Officers and Punjab Civil Services Officers working in the municipalities with effect from April 1, 1990. Subsequently, the matter was consid-ered and the benefit of the pension scheme was extended to the employees who are members of non-provincialised service of the Municipal Committees by notification dated July 28, 1994. The question arose: whether those persons who retired before April 1, 1990 are also entitled to be brought within the pension scheme? Admittedly, they are governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and on retirement, they had withdrawn the contributory Provident Fund in terms of the scheme that was in vogue earlier. The petitioners had filed the writ petitions in the High Court contending that the prescription of a cut-off date, i.e. April 1, 1990, was arbitrary, and denying them the benefit of the pension-ary scheme is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court following its earlier decision rendered in Sham Das Sharma v. State of Punjab dismissed the writ petitions.
3. Shri Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Shri Deoki Nandan Agarwal JT 1991 (3) SC 608 = ((1992) 1 SCC 323), Shri R.L. Marwah v. Union of India JT 1987 (3) SC 292 = = ((1987) 3 SCR 928) and Shri M.C. Dhingra v. Union of India & Ors. (JT 1996 (2) SC 463), the cut off date is arbitrary; the pension-ary benefits should be extended to the retirees prior to the cut off date; otherwise, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. We find no force in the contention. It is true that the pension is not a bounty but a right earned by the persons while in serv-ice. But, unfortunately, the pensionary scheme was not in vogue prior to the retirement of the petitioners. The pension scheme came to be introduced for the first time with effect from April 1, 1990 and it was applied to persons serving the municipalities drawn from All India Service or the Provincial Service. Subse-quently, that was extended to other employees in the non-provin-cial service. The later G.O. also applied to those who retired between April 1, 1990 and July 28, 1994, the date on which the scheme was extended to the non-provincialised employees. In other words, all of them have been treated as a class and no invidious discrimination has been meted out to them. Thus, the date of April 1, 1990 bears rationality, namely, the scheme for the first time was introduced on that date. All those employees who retired prior to that date were treated as a class and those employees either in service or retiring on and after that date have been treated as a separate class and the scheme was extended to it. Thus, we find that there is no illegality in introducing the cut-off date; nor does it violates Article 14. The ratio in the above judgments has no application to the facts in this case.
4. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
