Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan
Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 16.8.2013
1. CWP No. 11373 of 2012
Rattan Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
2. CWP No. 23062 of 2012 (O/M)
Dr. Sarwan Singh ....... Petitioner Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
3. CWP No. 20555 of 2012
Sadhu Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
4. CWP No. 12491 of 2012
Satwinder Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
5. CWP No. 12744 of 2012
Dhanbant Kaur and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
6. CWP No. 13361 of 2012
Madhur Swapna and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
7. CWP No. 13462 of 2012
Bakhshish Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
8. CWP No. 13703 of 2012
Roshan Lal and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
9. CWP No. 14480 of 2012
Jai Singh Heera and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
10. CWP No. 14776 of 2012
Nirmala Kumari and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
11. CWP No. 15440 of 2012
Sarbjit Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
12. CWP No. 16373 of 2012
Kulwant Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
13. CWP No. 16753 of 2012
Hardial Saini and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
14. CWP No. 16796 of 2012
Harcharan Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
15. CWP No. 17466 of 2012
Darshana Garg and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
16. CWP No. 18082 of 2012
B.S. Sekhon ....... Petitioner Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
17. CWP No. 19004 of 2012
Sawinder Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
18. CWP No. 19115 of 2012
Malkiat Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
19. CWP No. 18251 of 2012
Hazara Singh Cheema and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
20. CWP No. 18564 of 2012
Baldev Raj Sharma ...... Petitioner Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
21. CWP No. 18628 of 2012
Balwant Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
22. CWP No. 19398 of 2012
Daljit Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
23. CWP No. 19472 of 2012
Kewal Krishan and another ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
24. CWP No. 19504 of 2012
Darshan Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
25. CWP No. 20143 of 2012
Dr. Ramesh Chand Gupta and others .......
Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
26. CWP No. 20203 of 2012
Piara Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
27. CWP No. 20209 of 2012
Bimla Devi and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
28. CWP No. 21006 of 2012
Raj Rani and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
29. CWP No. 22774 of 2012
Brij Lal and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
30. CWP No. 23054 of 2012
Avtar Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
31. CWP No. 23324 of 2012
Dr. Chandra Parkash and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
32. CWP No. 23346 of 2012
Dr. Santosh Kumari and another ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
33. CWP No. 23703 of 2012
Mohd. Sadiq and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
34. CWP No. 24423 of 2012
Kulbir Kaur and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
35. CWP No. 25220 of 2012
Jagir Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
36. CWP No. 1352 of 2013
Subjinder Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
37. CWP No. 1686 of 2013
Harmohinder Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
38. CWP No. 4193 of 2013
Shadi Lal and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
39. CWP No. 440 of 2013
Dr. Jagdish Rai and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
40. CWP No. 5257 of 2013
Gurdial Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
41. CWP No. 7534 of 2013
Balram Chodhary and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
42. CWP No. 7763 of 2013
Trilok Singh Virdi and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
43. CWP No. 2112 of 2013
Jai Krishan Dev and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
44. CWP No. 4566 of 2013
Dr. Jaidev Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
45. CWP No. 737 of 2013
Ranjit Kaur and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
46. CWP No. 755 of 2013
Gurdev Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
47. CWP No. 801 of 2013
Hakam Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
48. CWP No. 8442 of 2013
Kuldip Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
49. CWP No. 8675 of 2013
Nirmal Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
50. CWP No. 9559 of 2013
Avtar Singh ....... Petitioner Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
51. CWP No. 10349 of 2013
Pal Singh and others ....... Petitioners Versus
State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents
52. CWP No. 10543 of 2013
Hav. Darshan Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
53. CWP No. 12177 of 2013
Amarjeet Singh and others ....... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ....... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. R.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWPs No. 11373 of 2012 and 10543 of 2013. Mr. Vikas
Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWPs No. 20555, 14776, 17466, 18628,
22774, 23054, 23703 of 2012 and 1686, 5257 of 2013.
Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioner in
CWP No. 23062 of 2012.
Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners in
CWPs No. 12491, 12744, 15440, 20209, 24423 of 2012 and 755, 8442, 10349 of
2013.
Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners in
CWPs No. 13361, 13462 and 16373 of 2012. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate, for
the petitioners in CWPs No. 13703 and 19115 of 2012.
Mr. Shiv S. Chohan, Advocate, for,
Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioners in
CWP No. 16753 of 2012.
Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate, for,
Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners in
CWPs No. 16796, 25220 of 2012 and 801, 12177 of 2013. Mr. C.L. Sharma,
Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 18251 of 2012.
Mr. Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate, for the petitioners
in CWPs No. 19004 of 2012 and 737 of 2013. Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate, for the
petitioners in CWP No. 19504 of 2012.
Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners in
CWPs No. 20143 of 2012 and 4566 of 2013. Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate, for the
petitioner in CWP No. 9559 of 2013.
Mr. Harsimran S. Sethi, Additional Advocate
General, Punjab.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
This is a bunch of 53 writ petitions, out of which
47 petitions are listed after notice and 6 petitions, i.e. CWPs No. 8442, 8675,
9559, 10349, 10543 and 12177 of 2013 are in the urgent list, which have been
preferred by retired Punjab Government employees who superannuated between
1.1.2006 to 30.11.2011 alleging discrimination vis-à-vis employees who have
retired on or after 1.12.2011. This discrimination, according to them, was
created due to issuance of a letter dated 15.12.2011 by the Punjab Government
fixing 1.12.2011 as the effective date to implement the decision of the
Government dispensing with the linkage of full pension with qualifying service
of 33 years and reducing it to 25 years with further benefit that the pension
shall be admissible equal to 50% of emoluments or average emoluments received
during the last 10 months whichever is beneficial to the employee. At the
request of the counsel for the parties, the writ petitions were clubbed and
heard together and are being decided by a common order as similar questions of
facts and law are involved in these cases. Briefly the facts are that all the
petitioners in these writ petitions have retired as Punjab Government employees
on attaining the age of superannuation on or after 1.1.2006, but on or before
30.11.2011. The services of the petitioners are governed by the Punjab Civil
Services Rules. Pension is dealt with under Volume-II of these Rules. As per
Rule 3.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, service of every
Government employee begins to qualify for pension when he takes charge of the
post to which he was first appointed. Rule 6.1 lays down that the amount of
pension to be granted is dependent upon the length of service as set-forth. In
Rule 6.16, it is provided that the amount of
superannuation, retiring, invalid and compensation, gratuity and pension would
be as set-forth in the table provided therein. In short, pension of the
employee was determined proportionate to the length of service rendered by him.
The Rules provided and prescribed that a Government employee is entitled to
maximum pension after rendering 33 years of qualifying service.
State of Punjab constituted the Fifth Pay
Commission for revision of pay scales and pension as also the other pensionary
benefits of the Punjab Government employees. Commission submitted its report,
which was accepted by the State Government. In pursuance thereto and to give
effect to the recommendations of the Commission qua the pay scales, the Punjab
Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (in short '2009 Rules') were notified
on 27.5.2009 to be effective from 1.1.2006. The Fifth Pay Commission in its
report in para-7.26, which deals with the effective date of pensionary
benefits, recommended that all proposed increases in allowances and other
benefits shall take effect from the date of notification by the Government,
whereas the revised pensionary benefits (such as basic pension, commutation of
pension, gratuity) should be from 1.1.2006 as in the case with the revised
salary scales. Under the heading 'Major recommendations of the Commission
relating to basic pension' in para-7.6, it was recommended that the pension
should continue to be 50% of the basic pay (plus NPA) and should be calculated
on the basis of last pay drawn or 10 months' average emoluments, whichever is
beneficial to the employee. In para 7.7, which relates to qualifying service,
Commission suggested that linking of full pension with 33 years of qualifying
service should be dispensed with full pension should be allowed once the Government
employee has rendered minimum qualifying service of 20 years apart from other
aspects which dealt with employees seeking voluntary retirement and the
voluntary retirement scheme as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission.
Notification dated 17.8.2009 was issued by the Government of Punjab, Department
of Finance (Finance Pension Policy and Coordination Branch) which dealt with
the implementation of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission regarding
pension and other retirement benefits. Para-12 of this notification provided
that all proposed increases in allowances and other benefits (such as old age
allowance, medical allowance, constant attendant allowance, ex-gratia payment)
shall take effect from the date of issue of these orders by the Government,
whereas the revised pensionary benefits (such as basic pension, commutation of
pension, gratuity) shall be from 1.1.2006. Decision about payment of arrears of
pension from 1.1.2006 to 31.7.2009 shall be taken in due course of time and
with effect from 1.8.2009 enhanced pension in cash shall become payable.
On revision of the pay scales, petitioners who
retired from service after 1.1.2006, were granted the pension and other
pensionary benefits in proportion to the length of service rendered by them and
the pensionary benefits were revised as accepted with effect from 1.1.2006. As
no decision with regard to delinking of full pension with 33 years of
qualifying service and granting full pension to the Government employees who
have rendered minimum qualifying service of 20 years as recommended by the Pay
Commission was taken resulting in delay in implementation, representations were
submitted by the pensioners.
Government ultimately issued a notification dated
15.12.2011 relating to implementation of the recommendation by stating therein
while referring to letter dated 17.8.2009 that a decision has been taken that
the linkage of full pension with qualifying service of 33 years shall be
dispensed with. Once a Government employee has rendered minimum qualifying
service of 25 years, pension shall be admissible equal to 50% of the emoluments
or average emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever is
beneficial to him. However, in para-3 of the said letter, it was stated that
these orders shall come into force with effect from 1.12.2011, which led to the
filing of the present writ petitions by the petitioners challenging the date
fixed by the Government of Punjab enforcing the said orders from a specified
date, thus, denying the benefit of the said letter to those employees who have
retired from Punjab Government service between 1.1.2006 to 30.11.2011 on the
ground that the same was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been pleaded that once
the report of the Pay Commission has been accepted by the State of Punjab
substantively and has been made applicable with effect from 1.1.2006, as is
evident from the 2009 Rules and partly qua the pensionary benefits also, vide
notification dated 17.8.2009, there is no reason or justification in
implementing the recommendations relating to grant of other pension related
benefits to its employees with effect from 1.12.2011, instead of 1.1.2006.
There is no rational in choosing the date with the object to be achieved and,
therefore, the same is absolutely arbitrary and discriminatory. Similarly
placed persons merely because of the date of retirement have been discriminated
although they belong to one homogeneous class i.e. retirees. Some of the employees, who
have retired on or after 1.12.2011, have started drawing much higher pension
than the petitioners even though they were having much less pay/emoluments than
the petitioners at the time of retirement, discriminating between pre 1.12.2011
retirees and those who have retired on or after 1.12.2011.
In support of these submissions, reliance has been
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D.S. Nakara
Versus Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 305 and a judgment of this Court in CWP No.
2208 of 1989 titled as Lekh Raj Khera and others Versus State of Punjab and
others, decided on 24.3.2009. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Purushottam Lal and others Versus Union of
India and another, (1973) 1 SCC 651, A.R. Lamba Versus Khadi and Village
Industries Commission, 2004 (3) SCT 362, a Division Bench judgment of this
Court in CWP No. 1283 of 1986 titled as Swaran Singh and others Versus State of
Punjab and others, decided on 7.2.1999 and a recent judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official Association,
Tamilnadu etc. Versus State of Tamilnadu, 2013 (2) JT 42.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the
State wherein the basic objection urged in defence to the claim made in the
writ petitions is that it is the prerogative of the State Government to fix a
cut-off date keeping in view the financial circumstances prevalent at the time
of issuance of the instructions. For this, support has been drawn from the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Versus
Amar Nath Goyal and others (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 754, State of Punjab
and
others Versus J.L. Gupta and others, (2000) 3 SCC
736, K.L. Rathee Versus Union of India and others, (1997) 4 SCC (L and S) 384
and State of Punjab and others Versus Boota Singh, 2000 (3) SCC 733.
Accordingly, it has been stated that the decision of the Government of Punjab
fixing the cut-off date with effect from 1.12.2011, is in accordance with law
and, therefore, deserves to be sustained.
Counsel for the parties have addressed their
arguments on the basis of the above pleadings and referred to the judgments as
noted above. Facts, as have been narrated above, are not in dispute and it is
apparent that the challenge is to cut-off date fixed by the Government of
Punjab, vide letter dated 15.12.2011, providing for the effective date as
1.12.2011 to the decision of dispensing with linkage of full pension with
qualifying service of 33 years and instead specifying therein that a Government
employee, who has rendered minimum government service of 25 years, would
entitle him to pension equal to 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments
received during the last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to him.
The judgments relied on by the parties as referred
to above, when seen and on analysing the principles set down therein would lead
this Court to a conclusion that the cut-off date can be fixed by the State for
applicability of the date of the benefit to be granted to a particular category
of persons. However, for reaching the cut-off date, there must be a reasonable
criteria to satisfy the test of it not being an invalid classification. For
classification to be a valid one, it must necessarily be based on a just
objective having a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Such a
classification
should be based on well-founded intelligible
differentia which should have a rational relationship with the object sought to
be achieved. Where the benefit is one time benefit on the date of retirement,
the cut-off date would be germane to the object which could be held to be
justified. It has also been held that when the date is fixed on the basis of
the recommendation made by the Pay Commission itself, the same is rational and
based on a justifiable differentiable criteria. However, where the benefit is
of a nature which is a continuous one and inures for the entire length of the
lives of the retired employees then the reasons have to be based on a just
objective sought to be achieved. Cut-off date on the basis of financial
constraints/expediency/ compulsions has also been held to be justifiable ground
for fixing a cut-off date being a policy matter.
While wading through the expanse of the sea of
knowledge which is reflected in the judgments cited by the counsel for the
parties, one common thread which runs through these beads of wisdom is the
requirement of a well considered, reasoned, conscious decision reached and
taken by the government on the basis of the financial constraints or
circumstances which forced the government to fix a cut-off date based on
justifiable differntia which can pass the test of reasonableness so as to bring
it within the permissible parameters laid down by the courts so as to catapult
it to a plane that does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Thus, each case has to be individually considered on its own peculiar facts as
no hard and fast rule has been laid down rather it has been observed that no
straight jacket formula can be framed which would cover each and every
situation, requiring this court to go into the facts of this case to
decide the issue in hand i.e. the validity of the fixed cut-off date.
In the present case the only ground, which has been
taken by the respondent-State for non-implementation of the benefit as
contained in decision dated 15.12.2011 with effect from 1.1.2006, the date as
recommended by the Pay Commission, is the 'financial constraints'. But bald
statement of the Government would not suffice to pass the tests as laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The requirement thus, is a positive and cautious
decision taken by the Government with respect to the same supported by such
consideration and reasoning and that too on the basis of records. As no
specific details were mentioned in the reply filed by the State nor was there
any reference to the records, this Court had called for the original records of
the Government where the decision was taken fixing the cut-off date. On perusal
of the produced records of the Government, this Court could not find any
specific decision dealing with this aspect of the matter and, therefore, had
called upon Mr. Sethi, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State to
assist with the help of government officials to locate such a decision, if any,
taken by the Government in this regard. Records were made available to the
State counsel on 5.8.2013 and on going through the same with the help of the
officials assisting him, he has referred to various pages of the record and
made an effort to justify the stand taken by the State. He stated that apart
from the records produced, there is no other record dealing with the decision
of the pensionary benefits. I have gone through the relevant pages and record
which had been pointed out by the State counsel. At page-70 of the noting file
where the recommendations of the Pay Commission with regard
to delinking of qualifying service of 33 years and instead taking 20 years as
the qualifying service for grant of full pension has been dealt with. At
page-72 of the file, a comparative chart has been prepared showing burden per
annum upon the exchequer in case of full pension of 33 years being given at the
age of 58 years with an average qualifying service of 30 years, 23 years and 25
years. It may be pointed out here that this relates only to the fixing of the
length of qualifying service of the employee which would entitle him to full
pension on retirement. At page-74, it has been noted that the Council of
Ministers in its meeting held on 20.10.2011 had decided that the qualifying
service for the Punjab Government employees shall be 25 years instead of 33
years. At page- 75, the decision with regard to issuance of the notification
has been ordered to be kept pending to await the decision of the Council of
Ministers. At page-76, it has been noted that the Council of Ministers had
decided in its meeting held on 19.11.2011 that the decision with regard to grant
of full pension on completion of 25 years of qualifying service would be
effective from 1.12.2011, instead of 1.4.2012 decided earlier in the meeting
held on 20.10.2011. In between, reference has been made to the meeting held by
the Cabinet Sub Committee, but nothing is forthcoming on the record which would
suggest that a decision with regard to the cut-off date has been taken on the
basis of financial compulsions or exigencies. Proceedings of the Cabinet Sub
Committee also do not indicate that the financial constraints was the ground
for fixing the cut-off date as 1.12.2011 nor does it indicate or point to the
fact that this aspect was put up before the Cabinet for fixing the cut-off date
or that the decision of fixing the date as 1.12.2011 with regard to the implementation of the minimum qualifying
service as 25 years which would make admissible to an employee pension equal to
50% of the emoluments or average emoluments received during the last 10 months
whichever is beneficial to him.
The only noting relating to financial burden on the
exchequer is at page-72 which deals with the fixation of the length of qualifying
service for grant of benefit of full pension on retirement where a comparative
chart has been prepared depicting the average length of service on retirement
as 30, 25 and 23 years. But this has no relation to fixing the cut-off date
with regard to grant of benefit. There is no consideration with regard to the
financial constraints after a decision was taken on fixing the qualifying
service as 25 years for grant of full pension on 20.10.2011 by the Council of
Ministers. It stands virtually conceded as the officials failed to point out
any consideration on the aspect of financial constraints or burden if the
benefit is granted w.e.f. 1.1.2006. There this appears to be no basis or reason
much less reasonable justification for fixing the effective date as 1.12.2011.
The ground, therefore, taken by the respondents that the cut-off date has been
fixed keeping in view the financial circumstances prevalent at the time of the
issuing the instructions is without any basis and is not supported by the
record which has been produced in Court nor have the State counsel with the
help of officials been able to point out anything from the record which would
show that the said financial circumstances were the reason behind fixing the
cut-off date as 1.12.2011. In the absence of material on the record which would
justify the fixing of the cut-off date, especially with regard to the financial
constraints/situation/circumstances, the said decision cannot be said to be in accordance with
law and would amount to discrimination amongst the homogenous class of
retirees. Discrimination is not legally acceptable and the present is such
which need to and can be redressed by granting the writ as sought for by the
petitioners in these petitions. It cannot be said that the decision of the
Government fulfills the basic principle with regard to the concept of valid
classification which would justify valid discrimination as has been laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Versus N.M. Thomas
(1976) 2 SCC 310, which has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official Association's case (supra) in para-27,
where it has been stated as follows :- "27. At this juncture it is also
necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid
classification is truly a valid discrimination. Article 16 of the Constitution
of India permits a valid classification (see, State of Kerala V. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310). A valid
classification is based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the
just objective presupposes, the choice of some for differential
consideration/treatment, over others. A classification to be valid must
necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be
based on a just objective. And secondly, the choice of differentiating one set
of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought
to be achieved. Legalistically, the test for a valid classification may be
summarized as, a distinction based on a classification founded on an
intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object
sought to be achieved. Whenever a cut off date (as in the present controversy)
is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for
favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification
(or valid discrimination) must necessarily be satisfied."
The present case does not satisfy the two tests, as
has been referred to above, and, therefore, the decision of the State
Government fixing the cut-off date as 1.12.2011 cannot sustain and, therefore,
deserves to be quashed.
The question now would be with regard to the date
of applicability of the notification dated 15.12.2011, para-3 whereof fixes the
date of its enforceability as 1.12.2011 which has to be struck down in view of
the above discussion. The obvious conclusion would be that the said decision
would be effective from 1.1.2006 the date which was recommended by the Pay
Commission with effect from which the pensionary benefits were revised such as
basic pension, commutation of pension, gratuity as per notification dated
17.8.2009. The Government letter dated 15.12.2011 refers to para-3.1 of the
Government letter dated 17.8.2009 and it is in continuation thereof where the
said decision has been made effective from 1.1.2006, therefore, the letter
dated 15.12.2011 would relate back to 1.1.2006 and would be implemented with
effect thereof. However, the said decision shall not apply to the employees
covered by the new pension scheme as specified in this letter dated 15.12.2011.
In view of the above, these writ petitions are
allowed. Para-3 of the Government letter dated 15.12.2011, which fixes the
effective date of the decision of the Government to be 1.12.2011, stands
quashed. Direction is issued to the respondents to consider the claims of the
petitioners and similarly placed employees treating the decision of
the Government as conveyed in letter 15.12.2011 to be effective from 1.1.2006
and grant consequential benefits to the employees who have retired between
1.1.2006 to 30.11.2011 within a period of four months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
The original records be handed over to Mr.
Harsimran S. Sethi, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, by the
Special Secretary of this Court under proper receipt.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the
connected case files. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
16.8.2013
sjks
Unlock Pension are not regulated by the financial services authority and do not offer pension, loan, mortgage or any other finance related advice.
ReplyDelete