Satish Chander Sharma vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 April, 2025
In P.D. Nanda (supra), High Court
held that the moment the employees became members of the
1999 Scheme, they had acquired a vested right and therefore
they were required to be heard before they were taken out of
the ambit of the 1999 Scheme. High Court observed that when
the 1999 Scheme was framed and notified on 29.10.1999
having effect from 01.04.1999, the State Government was
aware of all the legal implications but there was remissness on
21
the part of the State Government as well as the public sector
undertakings towards implementation of the 1999 Scheme.
The public sector undertakings were required to immediately
transfer the funds at their disposal towards creation of the
corpus fund. When the employees had opted for the 1999
Scheme, they automatically ceased to be members of the
previous 1995 Scheme. Therefore, withdrawal of the 1999
Scheme was improper. Though the High Court found the
notification dated 02.12.2004 to be bad in law, it expressed
the view that to effectuate the purport of the 1999 Scheme,
the said notification was required to be read down by
including those employees who became members of the
scheme and had retired before 02.12.2004 as entitled to the
benefits under the 1999 Scheme, instead of declaring the
same to be unconstitutional. High Court also rejected the
contention of the State Government that the 1999 Scheme
could not be implemented due to financial crunch. While
allowing the writ petitions, High Court declared the cut-off
date of 02.12.2004 to be ultra vires. The repeal notification dated
02.12.2004 was read down by including those writ petitioners
22
and similarly situated employees for the purpose of pensionary
benefits. High Court held as follows: