Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 357 (HP)

SWARAN SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA

2005-09-21

K.C.SOOD

body2005
JUDGEMENT K C Sood, J. (Oral).: The petitioner, Swaran Sharma, by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prays for direction to the respondent-State of Himachal Pradesh to grant her pensionary benefits admissible under the scheme, which is popularly known as Triple Benefit Scheme." The BACKGROUND 2. The Government of India in the Ministry of Education, by a communication dated 2nd September, 1966, addressed to the Chief Secretaries of the Union Territories in India, informed that the Government of India has decided that a Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Insurance Scheme (Popularly known as Triple Benefit Scheme) should be introduced in all the Government Aided Privately managed Schools, extending this benefit to the Teachers in those schools. This scheme was also introduced in the then Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. The Scheme envisaged, that all the categories of permanent teachers appointed on or after 1st April, 1965, shall be covered by the scheme which would entail the benefits, apart from the Contributory Provident Fund, pension equal to 1/120 of the teachers pay for every completed years (after 10 completed years) up to a maximum, 30/120 of the pay. 3.The grievance which calls for answer is whether the petitioners is entitled to pensionary benefits under the Triple Benefit Scheme, formulated by the Government of India in the Ministry of Education, for the Union Territories in the year 1966 (Annexure P-1). The FACTS 4. The petitioner was employed as Teacher1 with the GAV Senior Secondary School, Kangra, on 1st May, 1980. She retired, after having served the Institution for more than 17 years on 31 July, 1997. On her retirement, she was not extended the benefits of "Triple Benefit Scheme". The petitioner claims that she is entitled to a pension of Rs.350/- per month in terms of the Order of the Government of Himachal Pradesh dated 24th April, 1991 (Annexure P-2). 5. In the year 1996, the Government of India, in the Ministry of Education, took a policy decision, to grant terminal benefits to the teachers employed in Government Aided Privately managed schools in the Union Territories in India. It was decided that Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Insurance Scheme, which was popularly known as "Triple Benefit Scheme" may be introduced in the Government Aided Privately managed schools, to give terminal benefits to the Teachers employed in such schools. It was decided that Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Insurance Scheme, which was popularly known as "Triple Benefit Scheme" may be introduced in the Government Aided Privately managed schools, to give terminal benefits to the Teachers employed in such schools. 6This scheme was applied to all the categories of permanent teachers employed/appointed on or after the 1st April, 1965 in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. The teachers, who were appointed prior to 1st April, 1965, were given option either to continue under the Old contributory Provident Fund Rules or to come under the umbrella of the new Scheme. The new Scheme envisaged pension equal to 1/120 of the teachers pay for every completed year of service (after 10 completed years) up to a maximum 30/120 of the pay. In case the teacher has put in 5 years service but less than 10 years, such teacher was to be entitled to receive gratuity up to a maximum of 4/1/2 months pay. According to the rates, specified in schedule I to this order. 7. It is noticed that the some (Annexure P-1) was formulated for the teachers who were employed in the Government Aided Privately managed schools in the Union territories of India. Himachal Pradesh, then "Union Territory" become full fledged State on 25th January, 1971 and was no longer a "Union Territory" when the petitioner was employed as Teacher" in the year 1980. 8.Case of the respondent-State and Director of Education, in opposition to the writ petition, is that the case of the petitioner was examined and it was found that her claim is not covered under the provisions of relevant Scheme, as the Government of Himachal Pradesh after reviewing the decision of the Government of India took a decision that benefits to the Teachers, under the Triple Benefit Scheme, will be permissible only to the teachers of Government Aided Privately Managed Schools, who were in service prior to 1971 and had exercised option for the Triple Benefit Scheme. 9. Mr. Nag, learned counsel for the petitioner, refers to Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "Adaptation Order, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "Adaptation Order for short", and submits that unless amended, altered or repealed, all laws and Central Acts continue to be in operation as were applicable to then Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. Section 3 of the Adaptation Order reads: "As from the appointed day, the existing laws and the Central Acts mentioned in the Schedule to this Order, shall until altered, repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications, directed by the Schedule, or, if it so directed, shall stand repealed." 10. A reading of the above provision shows that what existing law and Central Acts mentioned in the schedule to the other continues to be in operation from the appointed day i.e. 25th January, 1971 until such laws or acts are amended, repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. However, Triple Benefit Scheme does not find mention in the schedule. The Scheme indeed would be a law for the purpose of this order under clause (f) of Section 2 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970. Clause (f) of Section 2 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 defines law: "Law" includes any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument having, immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or any part of the existing Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. 11. Now the appointed day as already noticed was notified as 25th January, 1971, the day when Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh achieved Statehood. The inference is that this Triple Benefit Scheme was not adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, is not applicable to the petitioner who was appointed as Teacher in the year 1980. 12.This apart Annexure RA/1 shows that the Government of Himachal Pradesh took a Policy decision, after attaining Statehood, not to continue with the Scheme and this Scheme would be restricted only to the Teachers of privately managed recognized aided schools, who had opted for the scheme prior to the year 1971 i.e. the date of attaining of Statehood by the then Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh for the reasons that such teachers were already covered by that scheme when Himachal Pradesh was the Union Territory. 13. It is noticed, G A V Senior Secondary School, Kangra was not Government Aided Privately managed School, when the petitioner joined the service in that School in the year 1980. Grant-in-aid was granted to this School only w. e. f. 1st April, 1993, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court. 14. 13. It is noticed, G A V Senior Secondary School, Kangra was not Government Aided Privately managed School, when the petitioner joined the service in that School in the year 1980. Grant-in-aid was granted to this School only w. e. f. 1st April, 1993, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court. 14. The petitioner, it may be noticed, never opted for this scheme nor^ contributed to the Provident-Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Insurance Scheme during her i employment. For this reason too the petitioner cannot, seek benefit of the Scheme I after retirement. 15. From whatever angel we may look, the petitioner is not covered under the Scheme. 16. There is no merit in this petition.Dismissed. No costs.