IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) Nos. 16375, 16396, 16391, 16395 & 16376 of 2008. Decided on June 3, 2011. 1. Amin Chand & others v. State of H.P. & others 2. Uttam Chand v. State of H.P. & others 3. Veena Kumari v. State of H.P. & others. 4. Prakash Chand v. State of H.P. & others. 5. Dhian Singh & others v. State of H.P. & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) In all these petitions, a common question has been raised by the petitioners. The question is ‘once the petitioners had started contributing to the General Provident Fund, for which they had been required to fill in forms, and numbers were also allotted, can they be required to contribute to Contributory Pension Fund, under H.P. Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006, notified on 17.8.2006, copy Annexure A-6’? Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - 2. Petitioners, in all the cases, were appointed to government service, after 15.5.2003. On 15.5.2003, a notification was issued by the Government of H.P., by which Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 were made inapplicable to the persons, who were appointed on the date of notification, or were to be appointed subsequent thereto. State Government had been contemplating, after issuance of that notification, to provide for some other alternative method of granting pension to the government servants, appointed on or after 15.5.2003. It framed H.P. Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006 and notified them on 17.8.2006. As per this Scheme, persons appointed to the government service, on or after 15.5.2003, were not to get pension or other retiral benefits, under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, but they were to contribute towards Contributory Pension Fund, constituted under the aforesaid Rules, copy Annexure A-6. 3. Petitioners, who were appointed after 15.5.2003, were required to start making contribution to the Contributory Pension Fund, in terms of aforesaid Rules of 2006, copy Annexure A-6. Rules provide that all those government servants, appointed on or after 15.5.2003, shall be covered by the Scheme and shall have to make contribution to Contributory Pension Fund. 4. Case of the petitioners is that they, having started contributing to the GPF before framing of the - 3 - aforesaid Rules of 2006, cannot be forced to make contribution to the Contributory Pension Fund. They, therefore, filed Original Applications before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking the aforesaid relief. On abolition of the said Tribunal, matters have come to this Court and have been registered as Civil Writ Petitions in the Registry of this Court. 5. Petitioners have challenged the authority of the respondents to make the Rules of 2006, applicable, with retrospective effect, to the employees, appointed on or after 15.5.2003. 6. In reply, the respondents have stated that notification was issued on 15.5.2003, as pleaded in the Original Applications also, by which it was notified that Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 would not be applicable in the case of employees, appointed on or after 15.5.2003 and that thereafter, Rules, Annexure A-6, have been framed, providing for Contributory Pension Scheme, and as per these Rules, every employee, recruited on or after the aforesaid cut off date of 15.5.2003, is required to contribute to the Contributory Pension Fund. Rule 26 of the Rules provides that employees, to whom the rules are applicable, shall cease to continue to subscribe towards the General Provident Fund. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. - 4 - 8. Competence of the Government to frame rules, in question, has not been challenged. The only question, that has been raised, is that the rules could not have been made applicable retrospectively. Submission is devoid of merit. It was in the year 2003, prior to the appointment of the petitioners, that notification was issued (on 15.5.2003), to the effect that Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall not be applicable, in case of employees, recruited on or after 15.5.2003. That means employees, appointed on or after the aforesaid date, are not entitled to pension, under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, under which rules, employees, recruited prior to the aforesaid date, are entitled to pension and gratuity etc. Government has formulated the Scheme of contributory pension for the employees, recruited on or after 15.5.2003 and has framed the rules, to give effect to that Scheme. Rules are Annexure A-6. These rules are, in fact, in continuation of the earlier notification of 15.5.2003, by which Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 were made inapplicable to the State Government employees, recruited on or after 15.5.2003. Therefore, it cannot be said that rules have been given retrospective effect. 9. This position apart, government, which otherwise has the competence to frame rules, can give retrospective effect to the rules. An authority, having power to legislate, can provide for the legislation, to have - 5 - retrospective effect, especially in matters, like the present one, which pertain to the service conditions of the government servants. 10. For the foregoing reasons, writ petitions are dismissed. June 3, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.