IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12145 of 1993 Date of Decision : April 19, 2010. Bhagat Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : None for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.12145, 13923 & 15843 of 1993 and 2389, 1440, 563 & 1650 of 1994 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.12145 of 1993. The petitioners who retired from the Police Service of Punjab State w.e.f. 1.5.1975, 1.1.1969, 31.1.1981, 19.7.1979 & 31.7.1984, respectively, are aggrieved at the Government Circular dated 9.7.1985 C.W.P.No .12145 of 1993 2 (Annexure P-1) to the extent it reads Dearness Allowance as Dearness Pay for calculation of the pensionary benefits qua those Government Employees only who have retired on or after 31.3.1985. Somewhat similar controversy has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus P.N.Menon and others, (1994) 3 SCC 68, wherein the Contributory Family Pension Scheme made Non- Contributory with effect from a particular date, was challenged by those who had retired before that date claiming that the benefit of non- Contributory Family Pension Scheme ought to be extended to them as well. The Hon'ble Supreme Court turned down their claim after observing as follows:- “Whenever the Government or an authority, which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, frames a scheme for persons who have superannuated from service, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such any revised scheme in respect of post-retirement benefits, if implemented with a cut-off date, which can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. Whenever a revision takes place, a cut-off date becomes imperative because the benefit has to be allowed within the financial resources available with the Government......” “The decision to merge a part of the dearness allowance with pay, when the price index level was at 272, appears to have been taken on basis of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. In tis background, it cannot C.W.P.No .12145 of 1993 3 be said that the date, 30.9.1977, was picked out in an arbitrary or irrational manner, without proper application of mind. The option given to employees, who retired on or after 30.9.1977 but not later than 30.4.1979, to exercise an option to get their pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity calculated by excluding the element of dearness pay as indicated in the aforesaid office memorandum or to get it included in their pension and death cum-retirement gratuity, was not an exercise to create a class within a class. The decision having a nexus with the price index level at 272, which it reached on 30.9.1977, was just and valid. It has been rightly pointed out that respondents had never been in receipt of dearness pay and as such the office memorandum in question could not have been applied to them. Similarly, the encashment of leave was a new scheme introduced which could not have been extended retrospectively to respondents, who had retired before the introduction of the said scheme. Same can be said even in respect of family pension scheme which was earlier contributory, but with effect from 22.9.1977, the scheme was made non-eligible for the said benefit and no question of refunding the amount, which had already been contributed by them, did arise.” (emphasis applied) In the instant case also, it is apparent from the impugned Circular dated 9.7.1985 that the dearness allowance/adhoc allowance sanctioned upto Consumers Price Index Level 568 was decided to be treated as dearness pay for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The decision has a nexus with the Price Index Level and cannot be termed irrational. C.W.P.No .12145 of 1993 4 No interference with the impugned Circular is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. April 19, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE