C.W.P. No.18498 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18498 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.10.2010 Hardayal Singh Rawat .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI -.- Present: Mr. D.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. 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? M.M. KUMAR J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 8(3) of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part-II Rules, 2009 (for brevity ‘the Revised Pension Rules’) on the allegation that the aforesaid rule has been given effect from the date of its publication in the official gazette i.e. on 17.4.2009. 2. The crucial ground urged in support of the petition is that the rule contravenes the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay), Rules 2008 (for brevity ‘the Revised Pay Rules’) which has declared the C.W.P. No.18498 of 2010 -2- date of calculation of pension as 1.1.2006. 3. The petitioner had superannuated from the Haryana Civil Secretariat from the post of Superintendent on 28.2.2006 and became eligible for superannuation pension w.e.f. 1.3.2006. The respondent-State of Haryana issued a notification for revision of pay scale of all its employees on 30.12.2008 notifying the rules known as Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Likewise the respondent-State of Haryana revised pension of all its employees who have retired/died in harness on or after 1.1.2006. Under the revised pay rules, the pension of the petitioner has been fixed which came into effect on 1.1.2006 on the basis of cut of date. Accordingly, the pension of the petitioner has been revised as per Rule 1(2) of the Revised Pay Rules and on calculation, it comes to Rs.10,135/- (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has claimed that his pension has worked out Rs.430/- less than his entitlement as would have accrued to him under Rules 8 and 9 of the Revised Pension Rules. According to Revised Pension Rules, a limit on the minimum pension of Rs.3500/- has been fixed and it can go upto 50% of the highest pay of a Government employee. The case of the petitioner is that since he was drawing actual pay of Rs.21,130/- he was entitled to 50% of the last pay drawn as per Rules 8 and 9 of the Revised Pension Rules. Accordingly, it is claimed that by virtue of giving effect to the pension rules from 17.4.2009 a new class of pensioner has been created which violate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length who have argued that the classification between C.W.P. No.18498 of 2010 -3- those who have retired on or after 1.1.2006 but before 17.4.2009 is artificial and fixation of date by reference to the issuance of notification has no rational basis and is thus liable to be declared as ultravires of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. According to the learned Counsel, by fixation of artificial date petitioner has been illegally deprived of his legitimate pension and the date which is co- related to the price index fixed in the revised pay scale is the only valid date which has the rational basis. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that by virtue of Revised Pay Rules the petitioner has been immensely benefited and it is a different matter that the Revised Pension Rules were made operational w.e.f. 17.4.2009. Had the Revised Pension Rules were made effective from 1.1.2006 he would have been further benefited. On that basis alone the Revised Pension Rules cannot be regarded as arbitrary or discriminatory. The fixation of date by virtue of provisions of Rule 8 (3) of the Revised Pension rules i.e. the date of notification would not be vitiated because whenever a class of pensioner is to be divided then the date of notification may be considered to be safe. There is no pensioner belonging to the category of the petitioner who has retired between 1.1.2006 to 17.4.2009 who might have been given the benefit of Revised Pension Rules. Moreover, had the respondents applied Revised Pension Rules from the retrospective date of 1.1.2006, the State would have come under huge financial burden, which has been regarded as a valid consideration. It is now well settled that fixing of cut of date for grant of benefit is well within C.W.P. No.18498 of 2010 -4- the power of the Government as long as the reasons given are not arbitrary. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj (2006) 5 S.C.C. 65. In paras No.17 and 18 of the judgment their Lordships of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed that the matter was considered in the earlier case in State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 754, wherein it was held that financial constraints constitute a valid ground for introducing the cut of date while initiating a revised pension scheme. The case in hand is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and there is no room for admission of the petition. 6. As a sequel to the aforesaid admissions, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( M.M. Kumar ) Judge ( Ritu Bahri ) October 12, 2010 Judge ashish