C.M. Nos.928 & 929 of 2005 and -1- LPA No.203 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos.928 & 929 of 2005 and LPA No.203 of 2005 Date of decision: 4.2.2010 Mahan Singh (died) through LRs. ............Appellant Versus The Bhakhra Beas Management Board and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. G. S. Bal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N. S. Bawa, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. ALOK SINGH, J. C.M. Nos.928 of 2005 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 802 days in refiling the LPA is condoned. C.M. Nos.929 of 2005 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days in filing the LPA is condoned. LPA No.203 of 2005 1. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 21.11.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge, present LPA has been C.M. Nos.928 & 929 of 2005 and -2- LPA No.203 of 2005 filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner joined as work charge driver in Beas Satluj Link Project on 30.07.1963. On the re-organisation of the erstwhile, State of Punjab's project was taken over by the Central Government w.e.f. 01.11.1966. The Central Government constituted Bhakhra Beas Management Board (hereinafter referred as B.B.M.B.). The petitioner opted to come over to the regular establishment of B.B.M.B. The petitioner stood superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.10.1989. The grievance made by the petitioner is that the Board promulgated pension scheme on 03.02.1990 and he should have also been granted pension in accordance with the said pension scheme. The petitioner having retired on 31.10.1989 was not entitled to those benefits thereof. The petitioner by way of the writ petition sought claim of grant of pension by taking into account his entire service rendered on work charge basis prior to his coming over to the regular establishment of the Board alongwith regular service till his retirement. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India and others reported in 1990 (4) SCC 207 and All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association vs. Union of India reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) C.M. Nos.928 & 929 of 2005 and -3- LPA No.203 of 2005 SCC 664 has observed as under:- “The principles enunciated in the afore- mentioned judgments of the Supreme Court when applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the pension scheme (Annexure P-5) has been made applicable to those employees, who were in service on January 1, 1990. It is undisputed that the petitioner has retired on October 31, 1989. He has taken the benefit of gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and he has also withdrawn the Employees Provident Fund accumulation for his service rendered under the Beas Construction Board. Even the contributory fund has been withdrawn by the petitioner after his retirement as on that date no pension scheme was in vogue. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.” 5. Admittedly, the petitioner stood superannuated on 31.10.1989. The pension scheme was made effective w.e.f. 03.02.1990 after the retirement of the petitioner and the pension scheme was made applicable to those employees who were in service on 01.01.1990. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not in service on 01.01.1990. It is a settled principle of law that any Act/Rules/Regulation/Schemes is always prospective in nature unless directed to be effective or applicable from the retrospective date. Pension scheme was made applicable for C.M. Nos.928 & 929 of 2005 and -4- LPA No.203 of 2005 those who were in service on 01.01.1990. By Courts order, it cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner who stood superannuated prior to 01.01.1990 i.e. on 31.10.1989. Moreover, the petitioner has taken all the benefits of the scheme which was applicable prior to the pension scheme. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. No interference is called for. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 04.02.2010 JUDGE ashish