State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Manohar Lal Mirchea
 INSC 462 (25 April 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI, K.VENKATASWAMI
Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Hon'ble Mr. Justice
K. Venkataswami Manoj Swarup, Adv. (N/P) for the appellants K.C. Dua, Adv. for
the Respondent The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
JU D G
ME N T NANAVATI, J.
granted. Hard learned counsel for the appellants.
respondent, through served, has not appeared either in person or though a
respondent, who had by 2.4.567 years' standing at the Bar, joined Punjab Civil Service(Judicial)
onthat date. He was subsequently promoted and became a member of the Punjab
Civil Service (judicial) on that date. He was subsequently promoted and became
a member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. Heretiredas a District and
Sessions Judge on 31.12.84. As he retired as a member of the Punjab Superior
Judicial Service. He retired as a District and Sessions Judge on 31.12.84. As
he retired as a Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules,1958 applied tohim.
his pension was fixed. On 22.02.90the State of Punjab amendedRule 16 of the Punjab Superior Judicial ServiceRules
and made two changes. In respect of death-cum- retirement benefits ofthe
members of thatService the Punjab Civil serv Rules were made applicable instead
of the all India Service Rules whichwere applicable till then.
inrespectof direct recruits to the Service. In their case,the actual period of
practice at the Bar not exceeding 10 years will have to be added now to his servicequalifying
for superannuation pension and other retirement benefits. Rule 4.2of thePunjab
Civil Service Rules Volume II provides that"an officer appointedto a
service of post may add his service qualifying for superannuation pension(but
not for any other class of pension) theactualpension ) the actual period not
exceeding one fourth or the length of his service of the actual period by which
his age at the recruitment one exceedstwentyfive years or a period offive
years, whichever is least, if the service or post is one:- (a) for which thepost
graduate research or specialist qualification, or experience inscientific. technological
or professional fields is essential, and (b) .... .............." The said
Rule has been made applicable to those who are recruited after 26.10.60.
validity of that Rule was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt in
Raj Kumar Gupta vs. Stateof Haryana (C.W.P.No. 11756 of 1989) and 17.9.91 the
High court declared it as invalid being violative of Article 14of the
appellant, therefore, made a representation sometime thereafter for refixation
of his pension by giving him benefit ofRule 4.2. It was rejected by the State
Government on 9.7.92 on the ground that the respondent at the time of his
retirement was governed by the all India Services (Death-cum-RetirementBenefits)
Rules and not by the Punjab Civil Service RulesVolume II and, therefore, he was
not entitled to claim the benefit of Rule 4.2. It was also rejected on the
ground that theamendment of 22.2.90 made in Rules 16 of the Punjab Superior
Judicial Service Rules was onlyprospective and the benefit ofthe judgment of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court inS.S. Dewan vs. State of Punjab cannot be given asthe said decision
was under challenge before this Court and operation of the order passed in thatcase
was stayed. The respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
following itsjudgment in Raj Kumar Gupta vs. State of Haryana (supra) byholdingthat fixing
26.10.60 as thecut -off date wasarbitrary. The Statehas, therefore, filed this
to 22.2.90 members of the Punjab SuperiorJudicial Service, in respect oftheir
death- cum-retirement benefits were governed by the All India Services
(Death-cum-RetirementBenefits) Rules and not by the Punjab Civil Service Rules
Volume II. Though the respondent claimed thebenefit of Rule 4.2 of the Punjab
Civil Service Rules Volume II it was really by virtue of the amendment madein
Rule 16 ofthe Punjab Superior Service Rules which made thoseRules applicable
from 22.2.90. As we have held in State ofPunjabvs. S.S. Dewan (Civil Appeal No.
506 of 1992) that the amendment made in Rule 16 applies only to those who
were/are in service and retired/retire after it to be regarded as misconceived andwithout
any substance. Therefore, in view of the decision inS.S. Dewan'scase (supra)
this appeal is allowed.the judgment and order passed by theHigh Court is set asideand
thewrit petition filedby therespondent stands dismissed. Inview of the facts
and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.