SBCWP No.6597/1997. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6597/1997. T.M. Harsora Vs. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi. Date of order : November 25, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Maloo for the respondent. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition was filed by petitioner T.M. Harsora challenging the action of the respondents whereby he was awarded penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 30/4/1992. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent-bank to grant him pension and post retiral benefits together with interest 18% p.a. He has in this connection challenged the cut-off date dated 1/11/1993 prescribed under clause 33 of the Pension Regulations of the respondent-bank with effect from which date, pension was made admissible to the employees retiring from their services. 2) It appears that petitioner expired during pendency of this writ petition and his legal heirs were brought on record pursuant to the order of this SBCWP No.6597/1997. 2 court. Matter was listed on various dates including on 19/11/2008 and 21/11/2008 but no one has appeared for the petitioner despite name of counsel for the petitioner being shown in the cause list. 3) Shri N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the respondent-bank has argued that at the time when petitioner was awarded penalty of compulsory retirement, pension scheme was not available with the respondent-bank. None of its employees therefore were paid the pension. Pension regulations were subsequently framed. In clause 33 thereof, it is provided that such pension would be admissible even to the retired employees who have been awarded penalty on or after first date of November, 1993. Validity of cut-off date cannot be questioned and this dispute in any case is set at rest by the constitutional bench judgments of Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. K.G. Radhakrishana Panickar and others : (1998) 5 SCC 111 and Supreme Court in Indian Ex-Services League and others Vs. Union of India : (1991) 2 SCC 104 and other judgments in Union of India Vs. S.R. Dhingara and others : (2008) 2 SCC 229, Col.B.J. Akkara (Retd.) Vs. Government of India and others : (2006) 11 SCC 709, Secretary, ONGC Ltd. and another Vs. V.U. Warrier : (2005) 5 SCC 245 and State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and others : (2005) 6 SCC 754. 4) Learned counsel argued that Supreme Court in K.G. Radhakrishana Panickar supra, has categorically held that new benefit made admissible for the first SBCWP No.6597/1997. 3 time to the employees of an organization but this cannot be claimed by those who were not in service on that date. Learned counsel therefore argued that in view of the settled proposition of law as aforesaid, writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record as well as the cited judgments aforesaid, I find that Regulation 33 supra has clearly provided that benefit of pension to such employees of the respondent who are awarded penalty of compulsory retirement would be admissible only if such penalty has been awarded on or after 1/11/1993. Regulation 33 was one of the clauses enumerated in Punjab National Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995. Respondent has in reply to the writ petition clarified that pension regulations were framed as a result of settlement/understanding reached between Indian Bank Association representing member banks and the majority officers/employees associations/ unions. Said settlement/understanding was signed on 29/10/1993 and, therefore, date 1/11/1993 has been chosen as the cut-off date. It is trite law that any pension scheme has to have a particular date as cut-off date with effect from which date it is applied. Employers thus have to therefore draw a line and once a line is drawn, some of the employees are bound to fall on the wrong side of the line but that cannot be a reason to complain about discrimination. Validity of cut-off date in all the aforesaid Supreme Court judgments cited by the SBCWP No.6597/1997. 4 learned counsel for the respondent has been upheld on this analogy. 6) I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order may be endorsed to petitioner No.1 for information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil