CWP No. 15871 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15871 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 29, 2011 Gulshan Rai Pruthi and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr.Heman Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed for declaring Rule 1(2) of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1999 (for brevity 'the 1999 Rules') ultra vires, insofar as it fixes the date of its application being 11.05.1998. The petitioners have also claimed that 1999 Rules should be made applicable from 01.04.1995. According to the averment made by the petitioners, they were earlier member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (for brevity 'the CPF Scheme') and at the time of their retirement they have received the CPF. 2. Mr. Heman Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners CWP No. 15871 of 2011 -2- has argued that there is no basis for fixing 11.05.1998 as the date of enforcement of 1999 Rules whereas in similar facts and circumstances the Pension Scheme of 1997 of Kurukshetra University was framed and it has been enforced w.e.f. 01.04.1995. According to the learned counsel, there is apparent discrimination between the employees working under the Kurukshetra University and those working in the affiliated colleges. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the cut-off date for enforcement of a scheme cannot be regarded as arbitrary because the State has to fix some date in accordance with its financial resources or many other factors. In fact, the matter is no longer res integra because a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Krishena Kumar and another v. Union of India and others (1990) 4 SCC 207 has taken the view that the CPF retirees constitute a different clause than the pension retirees. The relationship of employer and employee comes to an end on the retirement of the CPF reitree whereas it continues in the case of retirees with pension. The aforesaid conclusion is based on the fact that the CPF reitree are paid all the dues at the time their retirement whereas pensioner continues to get the pension which is paid at the time of retirement, cannot be the same which may be claimed by CPF retirees 10 years later. The question also came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sher Singh Ghuman (Retd.) and another v. State of Haryana and CWP No. 15871 of 2011 -3- another 1992 (1) SLR 14. A similar argument which was raised on behalf of the petitioners in that case, was repelled in para 7 of the judgment holding that it was difficult to appreciate the argument. The date of enforcement of a particular statute or rule cannot in the very nature of things helped and there is nothing shocking in it unless one can say that legislation can never be made prospective The Court cannot possibly be carried away by the fact that an employee of the Board who retired even one day before the enforcement of the Rules in question cannot get the benefit of the same as the date of enforcement cannot be effaced by striking down any relevant rule. In all cases law has to be enforced from a particular date. Therefore, we do not find any case for admission of the writ petition. 4. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 29, 2011 Atul