Sita
Ram Bansal & Ors Vs. State of Punjab & Ors [1996] INSC 1509 (27 November 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
G.T. Nanavati
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
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.
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 considered 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had withdrawn the was in vogue earlier. The petitioners that 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 pensionary
scheme is violative of Article 14 of the constitution. The petitions.
Shri Dhingra,
learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that in view of the judgments of
this court in 323) Shri R.L.Marwah vs. Union of India (1987) 3 SCR 928) SC
463], the cut off date is arbitrary ; the pensionary 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 the
service. But unfortunately the pensions 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 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 have been treated has
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 the scheme was extended
to it Thus, we find that there is no illegality in introducing the cut-off
date; not does it violates Article 14. The ratio in the above judgments has no
application to the facts in this case.
The
special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
