http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANOHAR LAL MIRCHEA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI, K.VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:       Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy       Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati       Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami Manoj Swarup, Adv. (N/P) for the appellants K.C. Dua, Adv. for the Respondent      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:       JU D G ME N T NANAVATI, J.      Leave granted. Hard learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent, through served,  has not appeared either in person or though a lawyer.      The respondent,  who had by 2.4.567 years’ standing at the Bar,  joined Punjab Civil Service(Judicial)  onthat date. He  was subsequently  promoted and  became a member of the Punjab  Civil Service  (judicial) on  that date.  He was subsequently promoted  and became  a member  of the  Punjab Superior Judicial  Service. Heretiredas  a  District and Sessions Judge on 31.12.84. As he retired as a member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service.  He retired as a District and Sessions  Judge on 31.12.84. As he retired as a Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules,1958 applied tohim. Accordingly his pension was fixed. On 22.02.90the State of Punjab amendedRule 16 of  the  Punjab  Superior  Judicial ServiceRules and made two changes. In respect of death-cum- retirement benefits  ofthe  members  of  thatService the Punjab Civil  serv Rules were made applicable instead of the all India  Service Rules  whichwere  applicable till  then. anotherchangewas inrespectof  direct recruits  to the Service. In their case,the actual period of practice at the Bar not exceeding 10 years will have to be added now to his servicequalifying  for superannuation pension  and  other retirement benefits.  Rule 4.2of thePunjab Civil Service Rules Volume  II provides  that"an  officer appointedto a service of   post  may  add  his  service  qualifying for superannuation pension(but not  for  any  other  class  of pension)  theactualpension )  the actual period not exceeding one  fourth or  the length  of his  service of the actual period  by which his  age  at  the  recruitment one exceedstwentyfive  years  or a  period  offive  years,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

whichever is least, if the service or post is one:-      (a)  for which thepost graduate research or specialist qualification, or experience inscientific. technological or professional fields is essential, and      (b) ....      .............."      The said Rule has been made applicable to those who are recruited  after   26.10.60.  validity of  that  Rule was challenged before  the Punjab  and Haryana HighCourt in Raj Kumar Gupta  vs. Stateof Haryana (C.W.P.No. 11756 of 1989) and 17.9.91  the High  court declared  it as  invalid  being violative of Article 14of the Constitution.      The  appellant,   therefore,  made  a   representation sometime thereafter  for refixation of his pension by giving him benefit  ofRule  4.2. It  was  rejected  by  the  State Government on  9.7.92 on  the ground  that the respondent at the time  of his  retirement was  governed by  the all India Services (Death-cum-RetirementBenefits) Rules and not  by the Punjab  Civil Service RulesVolume II and, therefore, he was not entitled to  claim the benefit of Rule 4.2. It was also rejected  on the  ground that  theamendment of 22.2.90 made in Rules 16  of the  Punjab Superior  Judicial Service Rules was  onlyprospective  and the benefit ofthe judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court inS.S. Dewan vs. State of Punjab  cannot be  given asthe said  decision was under challenge before  this Court  and  operation  of  the  order passed in  thatcase  was stayed. The respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It wasallowed, following  itsjudgment  in Raj Kumar Gupta vs. State of Haryana (supra) byholdingthat fixing 26.10.60 as thecut  -off  date  wasarbitrary.  The Statehas, therefore, filed this appeal.      Asstatedearlierprior  to  22.2.90  members  of the Punjab SuperiorJudicial Service, in respect oftheir death- cum-retirement benefits were  governed by  the  All  India Services (Death-cum-RetirementBenefits) Rules and not  by the  Punjab  Civil  Service  Rules  Volume  II. Though the respondent claimed  thebenefit of Rule  4.2 of  the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II it was really by virtue of the amendment madein Rule 16 ofthe Punjab  Superior Service Rules which  made thoseRules applicable from 22.2.90. As we have held  in State  ofPunjabvs. S.S. Dewan (Civil Appeal No. 506 of 1992) that the amendment made in Rule 16 applies only to those who  were/are in service and  retired/retire after it  to be regarded as  misconceived andwithout any substance. Therefore,  in  view of  the  decision  inS.S. Dewan’scase  (supra) this  appeal is  allowed.the judgment and order passed by theHigh Court is set asideand thewrit petition filedby therespondent stands dismissed. Inview of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.