High Court
Case Details
Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 2. Pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners are re(cid:5)red employees of Punjab Pollu(cid:5)on Control Board (PPCB - Board). They had re(cid:5)red prior to 01.01.1996. By way of these pe(cid:5)(cid:5)ons, they pray for issuance of appropriate writ : (cid:1) to quash the le’er memo dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure P-14) and memo dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P-15) vide which respondent No.1- State has declined to grant the pensionary benefits to the re(cid:5)red employees of PPCB, i.e. pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners. (cid:1) to quash part of no(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure P-7A) to the extent that same has been enforced prospec(cid:5)vely, instead of being enforced from 01.01.1996. [relief added by way of amendment in the pe(cid:30)(cid:30)on] (cid:1) to direct the respondents to grant benefits of pension to the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners under Pension Scheme implemented w.e.f. 26.12.2006 in terms of promise made by PPCB vide its le’er dated 25.07.1997 (Annexure P4). 3.1 According to the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners, employees of the Board being covered by the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereina er referred as ‘the Act 1952’), were subscribing a part of their salary towards Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1952. An equal amount being the employers share was paid by the Board and both these amounts were deposited with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. 3.2 The Board in its mee(cid:5)ng dated 07.02.1995 considered the item rela(cid:5)ng to implementa(cid:5)on of pension scheme for the employees of the Board and agreed in principle to grant pension to its employees. Vide le’er dated 27.03.1995 (Annexure P-2), the Board sent the copies of the proposed dra8 pension scheme to the Government in the Department of Science Technology and Environment, Punjab, Chandigarh, conveying the decision of the Board and desired that before obtaining the sanc(cid:5)on of the Government Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 2 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 and implementa(cid:5)on of the scheme, it may be examined by the Administra(cid:5)ve Department, Bureau of Public Enterprise, Finance Department and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. 3.3 Under the Act 1952, the Government of India introduced Employees’ Pension Scheme for all subscribers of EPF w.e.f. 16.11.1995. The scheme was made admissible to the employees, who were subscribing towards the EPF. However, para 39 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 provided that Government of India could exempt the no(cid:5)fied pension scheme for such employees, who may opt for a pension scheme, wherein pensionary benefits were at par or more favourable to the employees. 3.4 In view of the above said Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, which came into existence on 16.11.1995 under the provisions of the EPF Act, 1952, the Board vide its le’er dated 08.02.1996 (Annexure P-3), approached the Government of India as well as Government of Punjab reques(cid:5)ng for necessary exemp(cid:5)on under para 39 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, as pensionary benefits under the Board’s own proposed scheme were more beneficial than the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The said request was repeated vide another le’er dated 22.08.1997 (Annexure P-5). 3.5 A mee(cid:5)ng was held on 11.11.1999 under the Chairmanship of the Special Secretary, Department of Science Technology and Environment, Punjab, Chandigarh with the Board Authori(cid:5)es, wherein it was decided vide (Annexure P-6) to recommend the proposed scheme of the Board to the Government of Punjab for its implementa(cid:5)on and grant of its permission for implementa(cid:5)on of the scheme. Dra8 rules were also proposed to be sent to the Government for its concurrence a8er approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 3.6 Therea8er, the Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Science Technology and Environment, vide le’er dated 20.01.2000 (Annexure P-7) directed the Board to send dra8 regula(cid:5)on rela(cid:5)ng to the Pension Scheme for the employees of the Board in terms of Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 3 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 sub Sec(cid:5)on 3A of Sec(cid:5)on 12 of the Water (Preven(cid:5)on and Control of Pollu(cid:5)on) Act, 1974 for obtaining the approval of the Government of Punjab. In compliance of the said direc(cid:5)on, dra8 regula(cid:5)ons were placed in 107th mee(cid:5)ng of the Board held on 07.07.2000 and the Board approved the Pension Scheme under the name and style as “Punjab Pollu(cid:5)on Control Board Pension Regula(cid:5)ons”. The said regula(cid:5)ons were recommended vide le’er dated 29.08.2000 (Annexure P-17) to be effec(cid:5)ve from 01.01.1996, i.e. the date on which recommenda(cid:5)ons of 4th Punjab Pay Commission were implemented. 3.7 However, the Government approved and no(cid:5)fied the above-said Scheme vide No(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure P-7A) as “Punjab Pollu(cid:5)on Control Board Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regula(cid:5)ons” under Sub Sec(cid:5)on 3A of Sec(cid:5)on 12 of the Water (Preven(cid:5)on and Control of Pollu(cid:5)on) Act, 1974 as recommended by the Board, but made the said Scheme effec(cid:5)ve from 26.12.2006. 4.1
Legal Reasoning
Marwaha v. Union of India and others, 1987 (4) SCC 31 , this Court has held that fixing of a date for grant of benefit, must have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. There cannot be any dispute on the proposi(cid:5)on. Further, the case of Union of India and another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 323 relates to fixa(cid:5)on of cut-off date, for grant of liberalized Pension Scheme. Even in the case of Subrata Sen and others v. Union of India and others (2001) 8 SCC 71, where a cut-off date was fixed for the purpose of applicability of revised pension scheme, this Court has held that all re(cid:5)red employees cons(cid:5)tute one homogeneous class and there cannot be cut-off date fixed to extend such benefits. All the above said cases Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 10 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 which are referred to and relied on by the High Court are not relevant and cannot be pressed into service, to decide the issue which arises on the facts of this case. 16. Though there are long line of cases, where validity of fixa(cid:5)on of cut- off date is considered by this Court, we confine and refer to the case law which is relevant to the facts of the case on hand. In the case of State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754, while examining the validity of cut-off date fixed for grant of benefit of increased quantum of death-cum- re(cid:5)rement gratuity, this Court has held that the financial constraint pleaded by the Government, was a valid ground for fixa(cid:5)on of cut-off date and such fixa(cid:5)on was not arbitrary, irra(cid:5)onal or viola(cid:5)ve of Ar(cid:5)cle 14 of the Cons(cid:5)tu(cid:5)on. While differen(cid:5)a(cid:5)ng the facts with the case of D.S. Nakara, this Court held in para 29 of the judgment, which reads as under: - “29. D.S. Nakara which is the mainstay of the case of the employees arose under special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classifica(cid:5)on of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and gran(cid:5)ng the revised pensionary benefits to employees re(cid:5)ring on or a8er the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable was “being in service and re(cid:5)ring subsequent to the specified date”. This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised Pension Scheme, applica(cid:5)on of such a criterion is viola(cid:5)ve of Ar(cid:5)cle 14 of the Cons(cid:5)tu(cid:5)on, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who re(cid:5)red prior to a specified date, and those who re(cid:5)red therea8er formed one class of pensioners. The a’empt to classify them into separate classes/groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible dirreren(cid:5)a, which had a ra(cid:5)onal nexus with the object sought to be achieved. However, it must be noted that even in cases of pension, subsequent judgments of this Court have considerably watered down the rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara as we shall see later in T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy (“Veerasamy”). In any event, this is not a case of a con(cid:5)nuing benefit like pension; it is a one-(cid:5)me benefit like gratuity.” 17. In the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & others v. N. Subbarayudu & others (2008) 14 SCC 702, by no(cid:5)cing that a rigid view was taken in the case Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 11 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 of D.S. Nakara, this Court has considerably watered down the same and has held that fixing the cut-off date is an execu(cid:5)ve func(cid:5)on based on several factors like economic condi(cid:5)ons, financial constraints, administra(cid:5)ve and other circumstances. This Court further held that even if no reason is forthcoming from execu(cid:5)ve, for fixa(cid:5)on of a par(cid:5)cular date, it should not be interfered by Court, unless cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result. 18. In the case of Suchet Singh Yadav and others v. Union of India and others (2019) 11 SCC 520, of which one of us is a party, (Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.), while examining the claim of commissioned officers of defence forces, i.e., Army, Air force and Navy, who re(cid:5)red prior to 01.01.1996, for grant of next higher pay scale, on the strength of Order of Government of India dated 21.11.1997, which was issued in consequence of implementa(cid:5)on of Fi8h Pay Commission Report, this Court has not accepted the plea of discrimina(cid:5)on. In the said judgment, it is held that pensioners, for purposes of pension, cons(cid:5)tute one class and schemes which classify pensioners on basis of cut-off date are impermissible unless such classifica(cid:5)on is founded on some ra(cid:5)onal principle. On the facts of the case, in the aforesaid judgment, it is held that the Order which was issued by the Government of India on 21.11.1997, is applicable only to exis(cid:5)ng officers and not re(cid:5)rees. Further in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Associa#on by its Secretary v. The State of Manipur and others, (2019) 9 Scale 282, of which, one of us is a party, (Hon’ble M.R.Shah, J.), when validity of Office Memorandum dated 21.04.1999, issued for revising the quantum of pension by fixing the cut-off date on 01.01.1996 is ques(cid:5)oned, this Court has held that all pensioners form only one homogeneous class and held that such a fixa(cid:5)on of date for extending the benefits of revised benefits to the pensioners, is arbitrary and violates Ar(cid:5)cle 14 of the Cons(cid:5)tu(cid:5)on. 19. Coming back to the facts of the case on hand, by applying the case law which is referred above, it is clear that all the members of the respondent-Union, while in service, were governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. All those employees who re(cid:5)red before 05.06.1995, were paid all re(cid:5)ral benefits, applicable to them. As the Pension Scheme was not in existence during the relevant (cid:5)me, it was not the case of Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 12 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 viola(cid:5)on of any service condi(cid:5)ons either. The Pension Scheme is introduced by way of no(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on dated 06.10.1995, by giving effect from 05.06.1995, on which date the Cabinet has approved the Scheme. The employees who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and re(cid:5)red prior to 05.06.1995 and the employees who were in service and con(cid:5)nued a8er 05.06.1995, of the appellant- Corpora(cid:5)on, cannot be treated as a homogeneous class. The re(cid:5)red employees, who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, on their re(cid:5)rement had already received the benefits of such Scheme, cons(cid:5)tute different class than those employees who were in service as on 05.06.1995. There is a valid reason for giving effect to the Pension Scheme from 05.06.1995, though the no(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on was issued on 06.10.1995. The cut-off date, i.e., 05.06.1995 is fixed on the ground that the Cabinet has approved the Scheme from such date. As already no(cid:5)ced above, it is always open for the employer to introduce new Schemes and benefits, having regard to financial health of the employer. Whenever such new benefit is extended for the exis(cid:5)ng employees, re(cid:5)red employees cannot seek such benefit, merely on the ground that they too were the former employees of the Corpora(cid:5)on. In spite of specific plea of the appellant-Corpora(cid:5)on that the benefit of the Scheme was extended from 05.06.1995, in view of approval granted by the Cabinet to the Scheme, the High Court has erroneously recorded a finding that no reason has been assigned to choose such cut-off date. It is true that all pensioners cons(cid:5)tute one class and whenever, revision is effected, ordinarily such benefit is to be extended to all the pensioners but at the same (cid:5)me, the scenario in the case on hand, is totally different. On the facts of this case, it is to be no(cid:5)ced that when the members of the respondent- Union re(cid:5)red, there was no Pension Scheme at all. They were merely governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and, on re(cid:5)rement, they were already granted the benefit of such Scheme. In that view of the ma’er, only on the spacious plea that all the employees of the Corpora(cid:5)on cons(cid:5)tute homogeneous class, cannot ques(cid:5)on the cut-off date fixed for grant of Pension Scheme. 20. It is profitable to refer a judgment of this Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another v. Amrit Lal Gandhi and others (1997) 2 SCC 342. Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 13 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 The ra(cid:5)o decided in the said case is iden(cid:5)cal to the issue on hand in the present case. In the aforesaid case, pursuant to recommenda(cid:5)ons made in the year 1986, by a commi’ee appointed by University Grants Commission, the Syndicate and Senate of the University has recommended for introducing a Pension Scheme for the employees of the University. The State Government’s approval was sought, which was given for introducing the Scheme with effect from 01.01.1990. When such fixa(cid:5)on of cut-off date from 01.01.90 was found fault with by the High Court and the High Court issued direc(cid:5)ons to give effect from 01.01.1986, while reversing the judgment of the High Court, this Court has held that fixa(cid:5)on of cut-off date from 01.01.1990 cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. Relevant paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the judgment, read as under: “16. Applying the ra(cid:5)o of the aforesaid decisions to the present case, we find no jus(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on for the High Court having subs(cid:5)tuted the date of 1-1- 1986 in lieu of 1-1-1990. It is evident that for introducing a pension scheme, which envisaged financial implica(cid:5)ons, approval of the Rajasthan Government was required. In the le’er of 16-4-1991, wri’en to the Vice- Chancellors of different universi(cid:5)es of Rajasthan, it was stated as follows: “As per the direc(cid:5)on in regard to the aforesaid subject, the State Government has decided to introduce Pension Scheme in the Universi(cid:5)es of the State w.e.f. 1-1-1990. In this regard the State Legislature has passed University Pension Rules and General Provident Fund Rules. Therefore, by enclosing a copy of University Pension Regula(cid:5)ons and General Provident Fund Regula(cid:5)ons with this le’er, it is requested that by obtaining approval of the competent body or Syndicate of the University, these Regula(cid:5)ons be implemented in the University together and necessary informa(cid:5)on regarding implementa(cid:5)on be in(cid:5)mated.” 17. The Syndicate and Senate of the University, when they had forwarded their recommenda(cid:5)ons in 1986, did not contain a specific date with effect from which the pension scheme was to be made applicable. Their recommenda(cid:5)ons were subject to approval. The approval was granted by the Government, a8er the State Legislature had passed the University Pension Rules and General Provident Fund Rules. The Government had stated in its affidavit before the High Court that the jus(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on of the cut- Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 14 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 off date of 1-1-1990 was “wholly economic”. It cannot be said that the paying capacity is not a relevant or valid considera(cid:5)on while fixing the cut- off date. The University could, in 1991, validly frame Pension Regula(cid:5)ons to be made applicable prospec(cid:5)vely. It, however, chose to give them limited retrospec(cid:5)vely so as to cover a larger number of employees by taking into account the financial impact of giving retrospec(cid:5)ve opera(cid:5)on to the Pension Regula(cid:5)ons. It was decided that employees re(cid:5)ring on or a8er 1-1- 1990 would be able to exercise the op(cid:5)on of gePng either pension or provident fund. Financial impact of making the Regula(cid:5)ons retrospec(cid:5)ve can be the sole considera(cid:5)on while fixing a cut-off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ pe(cid:5)(cid:5)ons and subs(cid:5)tu(cid:5)ng the date of 1-1-1986 for 1-1-1990.” 21. The High Court, without no(cid:5)cing the difference of factual background, in the cases relied on by the respondent-writ pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oner and without independently considering the issue in ques(cid:5)on, has allowed the writ pe(cid:5)(cid:5)on. In view of the same, we are of the view that judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.” 14. Similar issue was also considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath Goyal’s case (supra) and it was observed as under:- “26. It is difficult to accede to the argument on behalf of the employees that a decision of the Central Government/State Government to limit the benefits only to employees, who re(cid:5)re or die on or a8er 1.4.1995, a8er calcula(cid:5)ng the financial implica(cid:5)ons thereon, was either irra(cid:5)onal or arbitrary. Financial and economic implica(cid:5)ons are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administra(cid:5)on of the Government, at the Centre or at the State level. XXX XXX XXX XXX 32. The importance of considering financial implica(cid:5)ons, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including in the following two cases. In State of Rajasthan and another v. Amritlal Gandhi and others, 1997(1) SCT 699 (SC) : AIR 1997 Supreme Court 782 this Court went so as far as to note that: Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 15 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 "... Financial impact of making the Regula(cid:5)ons retrospec(cid:5)ve can be the sole considera(cid:5)on while fixing a cut-off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ pe(cid:5)(cid:5)ons and subs(cid:5)tu(cid:5)ng the date of 1.1.1986 for 1.1.1990." [Ibid at p. 78 (para 17)] (emphasis supplied). 33. More recently, in Veerasamy (supra), this Court observed that, financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while implemen(cid:5)ng a pension scheme on a revised basis. 1999(3) SCC 414 at p. 421 (para 15)]. In that case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had re(cid:5)red from service before 1.7.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed separate classes. 34. In State of Punjab and others v. Boota Singh and another, 2000(3) SCC 733, ("Boota Singh") a8er considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. Nakara (supra) to K.L. Rathee v. Union of India, 1997(3) SCT 478 (SC) : 1997(6) SCC 7, it was held that D.S. Nakara (supra) should not be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of persons who re(cid:5)red a8er a no(cid:5)fied date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. [2000(3) SCC 733 at p. 735 (para 8)]. 35. In State of Punjab and another v. J.L. Gupta and others, 2000(2) SCT 8 (SC) : 2000(3) SCC 736, where one of us was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh (supra) were reiterated, and it was held that for the grant of addi(cid:5)onal benefit which had financial implica(cid:5)ons, the prescrip(cid:5)on of a specific future date for conferment of addi(cid:5)onal benefit, could not be considered arbitrary. [Ibid at p. 737 (para 4)]. 36. In Ramrao and others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Associa#on and others, 2004(1) SCT 775 (SC) : 2004(2) SCC 76, a Division Bench of this Court said, even for the purpose of effec(cid:5)ng promo(cid:5)on, the fixing of a cut-off date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it offend Ar(cid:5)cle 14 of the Cons(cid:5)tu(cid:5)on. Moreover, the Court held that possible hardship to be endured by a person as a result did not make cut-off dates viola(cid:5)ve of Ar(cid:5)cle 14. [Ibid at p. 88 (para 33)]. Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 16 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 37. In the instant case before us, the cut-off date has been fixed as 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. Consequently, we reject the conten(cid:5)on that the fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary, irra(cid:5)onal or had no ra(cid:5)onal basis or that it offends Ar(cid:5)cle 14.” 15. A similar issue has also been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in PUDA Employees Welfare Society’s case (supra). In that case, the employees of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (in short ‘PUDA’) had sought to quash the order of the Government, whereby proposal to implement a Pension Scheme as approved by the Competent Authority was rejected by the Government. A8er referring to “The State of UDar Pradesh v. Associa#on of Re#red Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad”, 2024 AIR (SC) 475; “Union of India and others v. M. Selvakumar” 2017(3) SCC 504; and “State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karamchari Sangh”, 2023(4) Scale 332, it was held by this Court as under:- “39. It is well se’led law that the scope of judicial review in examining the policy ma’ers is very limited. The Courts do not and cannot examine the correctness, suitability or appropriateness of a policy, nor are the Courts advisers to the execu(cid:5)ve on the ma’ers of policy, which the execu(cid:5)ve is en(cid:5)tled to formulate. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a par(cid:5)cular manner are absolutely different. It is within the realm of the execu(cid:5)ve to take a policy decision based on the prevailing circumstances for be’er administra(cid:5)on and it is not within the domain of the Courts to legislate. The Courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpreta(cid:5)on, certain crea(cid:5)ve process is involved. The Courts have the jurisdic(cid:5)on to declare the law as uncons(cid:5)tu(cid:5)onal. That too, where it is called for. The Court is called upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when a challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Cons(cid:5)tu(cid:5)on or any other statutory right. Any proposal for implementa(cid:5)on of pension policy is subject to the approval of the Government of Punjab, which was never granted by the Government in the present case in view of poor financial posi(cid:5)on of the Authority. Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 17 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 40. Similar issue has already been decided by this Court in CWP No.8501 of 2015 and other connected cases, #tled as "Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board's Employees Union vs State of Punjab and others", wherein the employees of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board were claiming similar relief and the same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 02.07.2024.” 16. It is thus clear from the above legal posi(cid:5)on that fixing the cut- off date is an execu(cid:5)ve func(cid:5)on based on several factors like economic condi(cid:5)ons, financial constraints, administra(cid:5)ve and other circumstances. Even if no reason is forthcoming from execu(cid:5)ve, for fixa(cid:5)on of a par(cid:5)cular date, it should not be interfered by Court, unless cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result. Financial impact of making the Regula(cid:5)ons retrospec(cid:5)ve can be the sole considera(cid:5)on while fixing a cut-off date. 17. The above legal posi(cid:5)on is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case also, the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners were earlier governed by the Act, 1952, i.e. the benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund. All the employees like pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners, who re(cid:5)red before 26.12.2006, were paid all re(cid:5)ral benefits, applicable to them. As the Pension Scheme was not in existence during that (cid:5)me, it cannot be the case of viola(cid:5)on of any service condi(cid:5)ons either. The Pension Scheme is introduced by way of no(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on dated 26.12.2006, by giving effect from this date, when the Cabinet has approved the Scheme. The employees who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and re(cid:5)red prior to 26.12.2006 and the employees who were in service and con(cid:5)nued a8er this date, cannot be treated as a homogeneous class. As already no(cid:5)ced above, it is always open for the employer to introduce new Schemes and benefits, having regard to financial condi(cid:5)on of the employer. Whenever such new benefit is extended for the exis(cid:5)ng employees, re(cid:5)red employees cannot seek such benefit, merely on the ground that they too were the former employees of the Corpora(cid:5)on. Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 18 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 18. The Government has fixed a specific cut-off date for implementa(cid:5)on of the Pension Regula(cid:5)on. The said cut-off date has been fixed a8er the Pollu(cid:5)on Control Board expressed its inability to bear the financial burden regarding the pension payable to the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners as per the representa(cid:5)ons made by them. The Policy decision is in the hands of the Government and the High Court should not interfere in said Policy decision by way of judicial review or by issuing any writ in this regard. The ac(cid:5)on of the respondents cannot be held to be discriminatory in this regard. 19. On account of the en(cid:5)re discussion as above, this Court holds that there is no merit in any of these pe(cid:5)(cid:5)ons. As such, both these pe(cid:5)(cid:5)ons are hereby dismissed. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. January 21, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes Yes Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 19 of 19
Arguments
It is contended by the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners that by changing the date of implementa(cid:5)on of the Scheme from 01.01.1996 to be effec(cid:5)ve from 26.12.2006, great hardship and discrimina(cid:5)on has been caused to the employees, who had re(cid:5)red from the services of the Board during the period of 01.01.1996 to 26.12.2006. This ac(cid:5)on of the Government in changing the date of implementa(cid:5)on of the Scheme is against the specific recommenda(cid:5)ons of the respondent-Board sent vide le’er dated 29.08.2000 and again on 22.09.2006, whereby the Pension Scheme was recommended to be made effec(cid:5)ve from 01.01.1996. 4.2 The ma’er was taken by the Board with the Government vide its le’er dated 03.07.2008 (Annexure P-8) to safeguard the interest of the affected employees by reques(cid:5)ng for retrospec(cid:5)ve approval of the Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to cover the employees, who had re(cid:5)red prior to 26.12.2006 under its Pension Scheme so as to save them from the financial hardship and discrimina(cid:5)on. It was pointed out that only seven employees had re(cid:5)red between 1.1.1996 & 26.12.2006. The ma’er was again taken up Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 4 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 by the Board with the Government by reitera(cid:5)ng its stand vide le’er dated 14.01.2010 (Annexure P-9). Affected employees even submi’ed affidavit (Annexure P-11) to the effect that they will not demand any arrears up to date of no(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on or pension commuta(cid:5)on and that they are willing to deposit employers share with interest. Said affidavits were sent vide le’er dated 9.12.2010 (Annexure P-10) by the board to the government. 4.3 In a mee(cid:5)ng held on 14.01.2011 between the officers of the Board and that of the Government, it was decided to discuss the financial posi(cid:5)on of the Board a8er taking into considera(cid:5)on the proposed pensionary liability of the employees. The Board vide its le’er dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure P-12) clarified to the Government regarding the financial posi(cid:5)on up to 2025-26 to be sa(cid:5)sfactory and even therea8er also. 4.4 Pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners made various oral and wri’en representa(cid:5)ons to the respondent-Board as well to the Government for payment of pension and to make the Pension Scheme applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is contended that in the proposal sent to the Government, it was clearly s(cid:5)pulated that financial liability of this account shall be met by the Board from its own sources without there being any burden on the Government. However, the representa(cid:5)on made by pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oner No.1 on 05.09.2011 was declined by the respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P-15), on the basis of an earlier le’er dated 05.09.2011, because in the le’er dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure P-14), while replying to the Government memo dated 04.08.2011, the Board had conveyed its inability to bear the liability due to funds constrains, which was totally in contradic(cid:5)on to the earlier le’er dated 25.01.2011 in respect of the fund posi(cid:5)on of the Board and its readiness to bear the liability specifically (cid:5)ll 2025-26. 4.5 Pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners have further referred to Sec(cid:5)on 37 and 38 of the Water (Preven(cid:5)on and Control of Pollu(cid:5)on) Act, 1974 in order to contend that State Board has its own funds and it may spend as much amount as it thinks fit for performing its func(cid:5)ons. It is also contended that Punjab Pollu(cid:5)on Control Board is flushed with funds and as such the ac(cid:5)on of the Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 5 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 respondents in declining implementa(cid:5)on of the Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.1996, in contradic(cid:5)on to the earlier stand, is null and void. 5.1 Respondent No.1 in its reply submi’ed that Punjab Pollu(cid:5)on Control Board was cons(cid:5)tuted by the State Government in July, 1975 vide No(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on dated 30.07.1975 as a result of adop(cid:5)on of Water (Preven(cid:5)on and Control of Pollu(cid:5)on) Act, 1974. The Act 1952 was made applicable to the employees of the Board from October, 1978, but the pension has been discon(cid:5)nued w.e.f. 01.01.2004 in view of the Circular dated 02.03.2004. As the employees of the Board have been represen(cid:5)ng since long to start its own Pension Scheme, the ma’er was referred to the State Government for approval of the dra8 scheme sent by the Board and that the Government of Punjab, Department of Science Technology and Environment, vide its No(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on dated 26.12.2006 has approved the regula(cid:5)on for grant of pension to the employees of the Board effec(cid:5)ve from 26.12.2006, i.e. date of No(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on. 5.2 Respondent No.1 submi’ed further that it has been clearly men(cid:5)oned in Regula(cid:5)on No.3, Chapter II of the No(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on that these regula(cid:5)ons shall apply to the employees of the Board, who were/are appointed on or before 31.12.2003 on regular basis and were working immediately before the date of issuance of the regula(cid:5)on and opted for these regula(cid:5)ons. 5.3 The request of the employees, who had re(cid:5)red prior to 26.12.2006 was duly considered and examined by the Board from (cid:5)me to (cid:5)me and the ma’er was taken up with the Government for covering these employees in the Pension Scheme. In this regard, the Government of Punjab, vide memos issued from (cid:5)me to (cid:5)me raised queries, which were replied by the Board. Finally, the Government of Punjab, Department of Science, Technology, Environment & Non-conven(cid:5)onal Energy vide its memo dated 8.8.2012 (Annexure R-1/1) sought queries from the Board as to whether the Board was ready to bear financial liability on account of payment of pension to the employees re(cid:5)red prior to 26.12.2006. The Board in its reply dated Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 6 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 24.08.2012 (Annexure R-1/2) to the Government of Punjab in(cid:5)mated that Board cannot bear the financial liability of the employees, who had re(cid:5)red from services of Board from 01.01.1996 to 25.12.2006, which was calculated to be ₹1.25 crores, as had been earlier conveyed to the Government vide le’er dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure R-1/3). Keeping in view the financial liability as well as totality of the ma’er, the Government of Punjab vide its le’er dated 30.11.2012 rejected the representa(cid:5)on of the employees for extending the benefits of the Pension Scheme. 5.4 It is further the stand of respondent No.1 that as per se’led legal proposi(cid:5)on, all the rules, regula(cid:5)ons, no(cid:5)fica(cid:5)ons etc. are implemented prospec(cid:5)vely and not with retrospec(cid:5)ve effect. Since the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners had re(cid:5)red from services of the Board earlier and the Pension Regula(cid:5)ons were no(cid:5)fied on 26.12.2006, so the Pension Regula(cid:5)ons cannot be implemented with retrospec(cid:5)ve effect from the date of re(cid:5)rement of pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oner No.1. Representa(cid:5)ons made by the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners to implement the regula(cid:5)ons with retrospec(cid:5)ve effect have already been rejected. 6. In the separate reply filed by respondent No.2-Board, it has taken almost the same stand as taken by respondent No.1. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners that once the Board had recommended the implementa(cid:5)on of the Pension Scheme to be effec(cid:5)ve w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and had had also informed the govt. that its financial condi(cid:5)on was good, it was not just for the Government to implement the scheme w.e.f. 26.12.2006. It is argued that by making the Pension Scheme applicable from 26.12.2006, the Government has discriminated with the employees, who had re(cid:5)red prior to this date. It is argued that all the re(cid:5)red employees, whether re(cid:5)red prior to date of no(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on or therea8er, form a homogeneous class and so, there is no jus(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on for fixing the cut-off date as 26.12.2006 for implementa(cid:5)on of the Pension Scheme. It is further contended that the Government has not provided any valid reasons for fixing the cut-off date to be 26.12.2006 and as Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 7 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 such, the decision of the Government in implemen(cid:5)ng the scheme w.e.f. 26.12.2006 is not sustainable. 8. Refu(cid:5)ng the aforesaid conten(cid:5)ons, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no discrimina(cid:5)on in fixing a par(cid:5)cular cut-off date for making the scheme applicable for only those employees of the board, who were appointed on or before 31st December, 2003 and were working before 26.12.2006 i.e., date of publica(cid:5)on of the pension regula(cid:5)ons. It is submi’ed that the employees, who had re(cid:5)red prior to this cut-off date, were availing the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and so, it cons(cid:5)tutes a separate class. A8er availing the benefit of said Contributory Fund Scheme on the re(cid:5)rement, it is not open to the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners to contend that the Pension Scheme as no(cid:5)fied for the employees appointed on regular basis up to 31.12.2003 and who were working immediately before the date of issuance of the regula(cid:5)ons, is discriminatory. Employees, who no longer were in service immediately before the implementa(cid:5)on of the regula(cid:5)ons, cannot be treated as a homogeneous class. It is also contended that it is always open for the employer to extend the further benefits to the employees prospec(cid:5)vely. It is the policy ma’er, in which the High Court cannot intervene in its writ jurisdic(cid:5)on. 9. Learned State counsel has relied upon “State of Punjab and others v. Amar Nath Goyal and others”, Law Finder Doc Id # 84235; “Himachal Road Transport Corpora#on and another v. Himachal Road Transport Corpora#on Re#red Employees Union”, Civil Appeal No.7230 of 2012, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.02.2021; and “PUDA Employees Welfare Society (Regd.) v. State of Punjab and others” Law Finder Doc Id # 2657177. 10. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully. 11. It is not disputed and rather, it is the own case of the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners that employees of the Board were covered by the provisions of the Act 1952 Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 8 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 and they were subscribing a part of their salary towards Employees’ Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. An equal amount being employor’s share was also being paid by the Board and both these amounts were being deposited with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab for credi(cid:5)ng the same in Employees’ Provident Fund Account and the Family Pension Scheme, which are maintained by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. 12. It is no doubt true that the Board as per its resolu(cid:5)on, had recommended to the Government to implement the Pension Regula(cid:5)ons to be effec(cid:5)ve from 01.01.1996, but a8er no(cid:5)cing the financial liability and a8er seeking necessary queries from the Board in this regard, the Government has made the said regula(cid:5)ons effec(cid:5)ve from 26.12.2006. 13.1 A similar ques(cid:5)on, i.e. implementa(cid:5)on of the Pension Scheme from a par(cid:5)cular date, was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himachal Road Transport Corpora#on’s case (supra). In that case, the employees of the Himachal Road Transport Corpora(cid:5)on were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The Corpora(cid:5)on introduced a Pension Scheme in the year 1995 by issuing No(cid:5)fica(cid:5)on dated 06.10.1995 and adopted Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972. Pension Scheme was given effect to from 05.06.1995, i.e. from the date the Scheme was approved by the Cabinet/Government. Union of Re(cid:5)red Employees of the Corpora(cid:5)on consisted of the employees, who had re(cid:5)red prior to 05.06.1995. They approached Administra(cid:5)ve Tribunal to challenge the cut-off date for grant of pension to only those employees, who were in service of the Corpora(cid:5)on as on 05.06.1995. They claimed that they were en(cid:5)tled for the pension as the others similarly situated employees between 05.06.1995 to 06.10.1995 and that ac(cid:5)on of the Corpora(cid:5)on in denying pension to the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)oners be declared null, illegal and void. They pleaded the fixa(cid:5)on of the cut-off date to be arbitrary and discriminatory. Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 9 of 19 CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 2025:PHHC: 008459 13.2 The Corpora(cid:5)on resisted the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)on but the Administra(cid:5)ve Tribunal dismissed the pe(cid:5)(cid:5)on of the Employees Union, who then approached Himachal Pradesh High Court. The High Court allowed the writ pe(cid:5)(cid:5)on by quashing the cut-off date on the ground that no reasons were forth coming from the Corpora(cid:5)on for picking up the cut-off date, i.e. 05.06.1995 for implementa(cid:5)on of the Scheme. The High Court declared the Scheme no(cid:5)fied on 06.10.1995 to be made applicable to the Members of the Employees Union and other similarly situated persons with the condi(cid:5)on that they will have to deposit the amount received by them under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme within a reasonable (cid:5)me. The said judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court was assailed by the Corpora(cid:5)on before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13.3 Hon’ble Supreme Court a8er no(cid:5)cing that all the re(cid:5)red employees of the Union were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, held as under:- “15. In the case of D.S. Nakara, (1983) 1 SCC 305, this Court had treated the pension re(cid:5)rees only, as a homogeneous class and all the pensioners governed by The 1972 Rules, were treated as a class, because payment of pension was a con(cid:5)nuing obliga(cid:5)on on the part of the State, (cid:5)ll lifelong to the pensioners, unlike the beneficiaries of the Contributory Provident Fund. In the said case, it was never held that the pension re(cid:5)rees and the employees in service, cons(cid:5)tute a homogeneous class. In the case of R.L