IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3914/2008 (OA 1882/96) Date of Decision : March 25, 2009 Sh. Raghubir Singh and others Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. for the respondent No. 1. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) To pay the pension to the applicants in accordance with the rules with effect from the dates they have retired from the Municipal Committee service alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. (ii) Directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to sanction the aforesaid scheme by giving pension to the applicants, who retired after 1.4.67 and not to withholding the same.” 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The petitioners were employed with respondent No. 2 Municipal Council. The issue of grant of pension was agitated by the employees of the municipal bodies as no pension was being paid to them and only benefits of GPF/CPF and gratuity were made available. Various representations were made to the respondents. Petitioner No. 1 retired on 30.1.1991 as Sanitary Supervisor, petitioner No. 2 retired on 30.6.1990 as Octroi Clerk, petitioner No. 3 retired on 31.8.1988 as Safai Zamadar and petitioner No. 4 also retired on 11.3.1988 as Safai Zamadar. The State of Punjab provided for pension to the employees of the municipal bodies in Punjab w.e.f. 1.4.1990. The present respondents also introduced pensionary benefits to the employees of the municipal bodies, but w.e.f.1.4.1992 on the condition that the benefits of GPF/CPF, gratuity etc. would not be payable. The petitioners have assailed this cut of date of 1.4.1992 and want to make it applicable to them also. In the reply the respondents have clarified that initially due to financial hardship pensionary benefits were not accorded to the employees, but however, taking into account various attending circumstances, including the representations of the employees the Government decided to grant pensionary benefits to the employees of the municipal bodies w.e.f. 1.4.1992. The cut of date of 1.4.1992 has been decided keeping in view the workability of the pension 3 scheme approved by the State Government for employees of Urban Local Bodies. It is evident from the record that such of those employees who retired prior to 1.4.1992 have already availed their retiremental benefits of GPF/CPF, gratuity etc. The date from which the scheme is to be made applicable is a policy decision taken by the Government based on several factors. It is solely the prerogative of the employer. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and unless and until it is shown that the policy is capricious, arbitrary, irrational or illogical the Courts would be loath to interfere with the same. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar versus Ramjee Prasad and others (1990) 3 SCC 368, has held that “the choice of the date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no principal reason is forthcoming for the same unless this shows to be capricious or whimsical of wide of reasonable mark.” The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Shri Bani Lal and 32 others in Civil Writ Petition 14764 of 1994 held that grant of pension like any other benefits to the employees has financial implications. It creates a burden on the employer. For obvious reasons, the employer has the right to assess the position regarding its resources. After consideration of the matter, if it is found that funds are available for the grant of benefits, they can be 4 granted to the employees as it is a question of policy which has to be decided by the employer. The fall out of the scheme being made applicable from the date prior to 1.4.1992 would be that those employees who have already availed their retiremental benefits would have to be directed to deposit the amount received by them. They may or may not chose to do so. If this Court were to interfere the workability of the pension scheme itself would be put in jeopardy. From the record it cannot be shown as to how the date fixed is discriminatory or is not based on any material consideration. The cut of date has been based on certain factors including the availability of finance with the respondent body. There is nothing artificial about it. The action of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary or whimsical. There is nothing illegal about the same. For the aforesaid reasons the present petition devoid of merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 25, 2009 (PK)