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   Admittedly,  they  are  governed  by  the contributory provident  fund scheme  and on retirement, they had withdrawn the was in vogue earlier.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.