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,
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.