IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20314 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 15, 2010 Jagdish Chander Arya …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, 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 petitioner has sought a declaration that Rule 3(2)(iii) in Chapter-II of the Haryana Affiliated Aided Technical Institutions (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2005 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’), fixing the date of its enforcement i.e. 31.12.2005, ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 2. It is conceded as a fact that the petitioner has superannuated on 30.9.2005. The Board of Governors of the Institute has granted him extension on a consolidated salary of ` 25,000/-, however, no extension was ever granted by the Director, Technical Education Department, Haryana. Accordingly, his case for grant of pension under Rule 3(2)(iii) of the Rules was not covered as the benefit of pension could be extended only to those who have retired after 31.12.2005. Therefore, the claim made by him was rejected vide order dated CWP No. 20314 of 2010 21.5.2009 (P-6). 3. We have heard learned counsel at some length and are of the view that for coming into operation, some date has to be fixed by the rule making authorities and the fixation of such a date cannot be considered to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present case the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2005 whereas the benefit of the Rules could be given to those who have attained superannuation after 31.12.2005. Accordingly, no case is made out to declare that Rule 3(2)(iii) of the Rules is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that with regard to other matters the petitioner may be permitted to file representation by raising various pleas before respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 4. In view of above discussion, this writ petition fails. Vires of Rule 3(2)(iii) of the Rules is upheld and the writ petition is disposed of with liberty in terms of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) December 15, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2