Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SITA RAM BANSAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.ETC.ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/11/1996
BENCH:
K.RAMASWAMY, G.T.NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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had withdrawn the was in vogue earlier.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
sham Das Sharma Vs. State of Punjab dismissed the writ
petitions.
Shri Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioners,
contended that in view of the judgments of this court in
union of India Vs. Shri Deoki Nandan Agarwal (1992) 1 SCC
323) Shri R.L.Marwah vs. Union of India (1987) 3 SCR 928)
and shri M.C. Dhingra Vs. Union of India & Ors. [JT 1996 (2)
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.