SITA RAM BANSAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 27-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
SITA RAM BANSAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 27, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1tic/e 14. 
Equality-PresC1iptioll of cut off dat&-Validity of-Pension scheme 
introduced w.e.f Ap1il 1, 199~Scheme applicable to All India Gazetted C 
Officers and Punjab Civil Se1vices Office1' working in the Municipalities i.e. 
provincial servic&-Subsequently another Govemment order issued extending 
the benefits of pension scheme to members of non-provincialised ser-
vicr;-Petitioners who are non-provincialised employees filed a writ seeking 
benefits of pension schemr;-Contention that presc1iption of cut-off-date was 
arbitrary-Dismissal of w1it petition by High Court-Appeal-Held, The date D 
of April 1, 1990 bears rationality, namely, the scheme for the first time was 
introduced on that datr;-Al/ those employees who retired prior to that date 
were treated as a class and those employees either in se1Vice or retiring on 
and after that date have been treated as a separate class and the scheme was 
extendetf-Thus there is no illegality in introducing the cut-off date; nor does E 
it violate A riicle 14. 
Union of Indiav.Sltn' Deoki Nandan Agarwa~ [1992] l SCC 323; Shri 
R.L. Marwah v. Union of India, [1987] 3 SCR 928 and Sh1i M.C. Dhingra 
v. Union of India & Ors., JT (1996) 2 SC 463, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
Nos. 22517-20 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.96 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14764, 15213/94, 3806-07 of 1995. 
M.C. Dhingra for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These speci!d leave petitions have been filed against the judgment of 
F 
G 
the Division Bench of the 1'11njab & Haryana High Court, made on May H 
249 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R . 
• 
A 10, 1996 in C.W.P. No. 14764/94 and batch. 
The petitioners are non-provincialised employees working in the 
notified municipal Committees. The Government in notification No. JA-I-
DCFA-DLG-91/3958, dated January 25, 1991 have introduced the pension 
B scheme applicable to All India Gazetted Officers and Punjab Civil Services 
Officers working in the municipalities with effect from April 1, 1990. 
Subsequently, the matter was considered and the benefit of the pension 
scheme was extended to the employees who are members of non-provin-
cialised service of the Municipal Committees by notification dated July 28, 
1994. The question arose : whether those persons who retired before April 
C 1, 1990 are also entitled to be brought within the pension scheme? Admit-
~dly, they are governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and 
on retirement, they had withdrawn the contributory Provident Fund in 
terms of the scheme that was in vogue earlier. The petitioners had filed the 
writ petitions in the High Court contending that prescription of a cut-off 
D date. i.e. April 1, 1990, was arbitrary, and denying them the benefit of the 
pensionary scheme is .violative of Article 14 -of the Constitution. The High 
Court following its earlier decision rendered in Sham Das Sharma v. State 
of Punjab dismissed the writ petitions. 
Shri Dhingra, learned counsel for .the petitioners, contended that in 
E view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Shri Deoki Nandan 
Agarwal (1992] 1 SCC 323; Shri R.L. Marwah v. Union of India (1987] 3 
SCR 928 and Shri M.C. Dhingra v. Union of India & Ors. JT (1996) 2 SC 
463; the cut off date is arbitrary; the pensionary benefits should be ex-
tended to the retirees prior to the cut of date; otherwise, it violates Article 
p 14 of the Constitution. We find no force in the contention. It is true that 
the pension is not a bounty but a right earned by the persons while in 
service. But, unfortunately, the pensionary scheme was not in vogue prior 
to the retirement of the petitioners .. The pension scheme came to be 
introduced for the first time with effect from April 1, 1990 and it was 
G applied to persons serving the municipalities drawn from All India Service 
or the Provincial Service. Subsequently, that was extended to other . 
employees in the non-provincial service. The later G.O. also applied to 
those who retired between April 1, 1990 and July 28, 1994, the date on 
which the scheme was extended to the non-provincialised employees. In 
other words, all of them have been treated as a class and no invidious
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.