Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1772 (RAJ)

Makhan Lal Mundra v. State of Rajasthan ors.

2002-10-28

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought directions against the respondents for grant of pensionary benefits with interest under the Pension Scheme of 1992 and further prayer has been made to declare the amendment made by the Government in the said scheme as null and void. 2. The controversy in the present writ petition centres round only for the period January 1, 1974 to November 30, 1993 during which the petitioner rendered service in the Rajasthan Taxation Board, Jaipur (in short the Board). Earlier to it the petitioner rendered services in the State of Rajasthan from the period October 19, 1959 to December 31, 1973 and for this period he is already setting pensionary benefits from the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that the Board in its 60th Meeting held on January 24, 1992 resolved that a pension scheme as proposed before the Governing Council shall be applicable to its employees and by this Resolution pension scheme was made applicable on its employees with effect from April 1, 1992. The officials of the Board instead of making pension scheme applicable to its employees sent the pension scheme 1992 to the State of Rajasthan, respondent No.1 for its approval. The State Government approved the Pension Scheme 1992 vide its letter dated May 28, 1994 effective from April 1, 1994. The petitioner stood retired on attaining superannuation age on November 30, 1993. Earlier to it the petitioner gave option on April 1, 1976 for giving him the benefit of Government Pension and Gratuity and simultaneously also gave option to review the letter of option. The petitioner further gave option on November 25, 1993 in view of letter dated November 24, 1993 issued by the respondent No.3. The petitioner gave letter dated January 20, 1994 after retirement for giving provisional pension but no heed was paid to it. When pension was not given to the petitioner, he has approached this court by filing the present writ petition. 3. The respondents submitted return and averred that the Board Employees Service, Discipline and Conduct Rules, 1979 came into force from September 1, 1979 wherein the provision of contributory provident fund and death cum retirement gratuity was made. When pension was not given to the petitioner, he has approached this court by filing the present writ petition. 3. The respondents submitted return and averred that the Board Employees Service, Discipline and Conduct Rules, 1979 came into force from September 1, 1979 wherein the provision of contributory provident fund and death cum retirement gratuity was made. The petitioner has not made any revision in his option at that time and thus his option became final and he became entitled only for pensionary benefits for the services rendered under the Government upto December 31, 1973 as per the Government communication dated April 15, 1980 and the retirement benefits as envisaged in the Board's service Rules, 1979. When the petitioner entered the services of the Board there was no such Pension Scheme available for the Board's employees. Only CPF Scheme and its benefits were prevalent which adequately covered the old age security of its employees and similar provisions was continued till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and now the petitioner cannot raise the grievance that he has been discriminated and in the present circumstances as per the prevailing rules and regulations and the scheme the pensionary benefits under the Board's scheme cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 4. I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 5. Admittedly the Pension Scheme 1992 was approved by the Board in its 60th meeting held on 24th January 1992. Thereafter the matter was sent to the Government for approval. The State Government granted its approval vide its letter dated May 28, 1994 to be made applicable the Pension Scheme 1992 w.e.f. April 1, 1994. 6. This Court in (1) Shyam Sunder Lal Sahu and others v. Rajasthan Khadi and Village Industries Board and Another (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2486/90 and other similar writ petitions decided on August 9, 1991) [reported in 1991(1) RLR 299] , in similar circumstances held as under : "In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. It is declared that fixation of date 1.9.1988 as the date of application of the pension scheme is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is declared that the pension scheme should be treated as applicable to all employees who retired on or before 28.1.1983 when the Board has sanctioned the sending of pension scheme to the Government. It is declared that the pension scheme should be treated as applicable to all employees who retired on or before 28.1.1983 when the Board has sanctioned the sending of pension scheme to the Government. The petitioners are entitled to be governed by the pension scheme. Respondents are accordingly directed to issue necessary orders for payment of pension to the petitioners. Similarly situated persons may be given option to accept pension scheme within a period of four months from the date of presentation of copy of this order." 7. In (2) Sidhu Bhushan Malik v. Union of India ( AIR 1983 All. 20 ) the question of classification of Judges came up for consideration and it was held that eligibility for liberalised pension of having retired on after October 1, 1974 in the said Act of 1954 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India was unconstitutional. This decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (3) Union of India v. Sidhu Bhushan Malik ( 1984 (3) SCC 95 ) . In (4) State of Rajasthan v. Retired Contributory Provident Fund Holders, Jodhpur (1987(1) RLR 353 = 1987(1) WLN 238) the point for consideration, was as to whether classification between the Contributory Provident Fund Holders similarly situated was permissible and denied of option for pension to those retiring prior to a specified date attracted Articles 14 and 16. There being no basis for fixing the date and thereby making classification between the similarly situated, the date so fixed being held to be discriminatory and arbitrary was struck down. 8. In the case on hand admittedly the Board had resolved in its 60th meeting held on January 24, 1992 that the Pension Scheme 1992 shall be applicable to its employees with effect from April 1, 1992 and sent the scheme for approval to the State of Rajasthan. The State Government took 2 years to approve the pension scheme. If the Government had been bit vigilant in considering the matter, obviously the scheme would have been sanctioned/approved much earlier than April 1, 1994. When the Board approved the pension Scheme 1992 to be applicable from April 1, 1992, the action of the Government in making it applicable w.e.f. April 1, 1994 cannot be justified. The act of the State Government in fixing the cut off date is not based on any policy decision taken in view of its financial resources. When the Board approved the pension Scheme 1992 to be applicable from April 1, 1992, the action of the Government in making it applicable w.e.f. April 1, 1994 cannot be justified. The act of the State Government in fixing the cut off date is not based on any policy decision taken in view of its financial resources. This artificial fixation of the date from April 1, 1994 has caused serious prejudice and injustice to the persons who have retired before April 1, 1994 and the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and has resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed and it is declared that fixation of date April 1, 1994 as the date of application of the pension scheme is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. It is further declared that the pension scheme should be treated as applicable to all employees who retired on or before (sic after ?) April 1, 1992 when the Board had made the scheme applicable to its employees and the petitioner is entitled to be governed by the pension scheme. Respondents are accordingly directed to issue necessary orders for payment of pension to the petitioner. The petitioner shall however not be entitled to any interest an costs. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within sixty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.Petition Allowed. *******