Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurtek Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 January, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 352 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION : 11.01.2012
Gurtek Singh and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
In the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.9.2011 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Director, Secondary Education, whereby claim of the petitioners for grant of full pension has been declined. The petitioners have also prayed that Rule 8 (3) of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part-II Rules 2009 (hereinafter referred to as `the Revised Pension Rules of 2009') be declared as ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order.
CWP No. 352 of 2012 -2-
Undisputedly, the petitioners have retired from service on superannuation, in between 1.1.2006 to 16.4.2009 . It is also undisputed fact that none of the petitioners has completed 33 years of qualifying service, which would have made them entitled for full pension under the Pension Rules existing at the time of their retirement. With effect from 17.4.2009, the Revised Pension Rules of 2009 came into force. It is an admitted fact that all the petitioners retired from service before coming into force of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009. It is further admitted position that as per the Pension Rules, applicable prior to the Revised Pension Rules of 2009, a retiree was entitled for full pension on completion of 33 years of qualifying service. Under Rule 8.1 of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009, the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service was modified to the extent that once a Government servant retires after rendering the minimum qualifying service of 28 years, pension shall be sanctioned at 50 per cent of the emoluments as defined in Rule 4 of the Rules subject to other conditions relating the same. However, under sub-rule (3), it was provided that the revised provisions for calculation of pension shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of the notification of the Rules and shall be applicable to Government servants retiring on or after that date. The Governments servants who have retired on or after 1st January, 2006 but before the date of issue of the notification of the Rules, will continue to be governed by the Rules which were in force immediately before these Rules came into effect as regards qualifying service. With regard to the grant of CWP No. 352 of 2012 -3- revised pay scales, the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as `the Revised Pay Rules of 2008') were implemented with effect from 1.1.2006, but as far as the provisions regarding calculation of revised pension of the employees who retired between 1.1.2006 to 17.4.2009 (the date of issuance of notification enforcing the Revised Pension Rules of 2009) are concerned, the Revised Pension Rules of 2009 will apply, but as regards the qualifying service, the old Rules were made applicable. Therefore, it has been found by the Director, Secondary Education, that the petitioners, who have though retired after 1.1.2006, but before 17.4.2009, are not entitled for full pension, as they have not completed 33 years of qualifying service. However, the amount of their pension shall be calculated as per the revised pay in Revised Pension Rules of 2009. Under Rule 8 (3) of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009, they cannot be given full pension on completion of 28 years of qualifying service. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Rule 8 (3) of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009 is arbitrary and ultra vires to the Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in this argument. Under Rule 8 (1), benefit of full pension has been given to the employees on completion of 28 years of qualifying service. Under sub-rule (3), this benefit has been made available to the employees who have retired after 17.4.2009, i.e. after coming into force of the Revised Pension Rules of CWP No. 352 of 2012 -4- 2009. Undisputedly, the petitioners have retired much earlier to the aforesaid date. However, they have been given the benefit of revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.2006, which has been given to all the employees under the Revised Pay Rules of 2008, whether they have retired on or after 1.1.2006, because the revision of pay was made effective with effect from 1.1.2006. Thus, the clarification made by these Rules is not arbitrary. Hence, we do not find any discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in Rule 8 (3) of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
January 11, 2012 ( T.P.S. MANN )
ndj JUDGE