THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus MANOHAR LAL MIRCHEA

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1035 · Decided: 25-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
MANOHAR LAL MIRCHEA 
APRIL 25, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMI, G.T; NANAVATI AND 
K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules 1963-Rule 16-Amendment C 
made on 22.2.199o-Benefit of-Prior to amendment-Applicability of-Rule 
applicable to the m'1Jlbers of Punjab Superior Judicial Services, providing 
certain superannuation pe11sio11 benefit and post retirement benefits to direct 
recruits retired prior to 22.2.199o-Held, the amendment made i11 Rule 16 
applies only to those who were/are in service and retired/retire after it has 
come into force-Hence the claim made by the respondent has to be regarded D 
as misconceived and without any substance. 
The Respondent joined Punjab Civil Service (Judicial) and was 
subsequently promoted and became a member of the Punjab Superior 
Judicial Service. He retired as a District and Sessions Judge on 31.12.1984. 
As he retired as a member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service, for the 
purpose of determining his death-cum-retirement benefits the All India 
Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 applied to him. Ac· 
cordingly his pension was fixed. On 22.2.1990, the State amended Rule 16 
of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules and made two changes. In 
respect of death-cum-retirement benefit of the members of that Service the 
Punjab Civil Service Rules were made applicable instead of the All India 
Service Rules which were applicable till then. Another change was in 
respect of direct recruits to the service. In their case the actual period at 
the bar not exceeding 10 years will have to be added to his service 
qualifying for superannuation pension and other retirement benefits. 
Rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II provides that 
an officer appointed to a service of post may add to his service qualifying 
E 
F 
G 
for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the 
actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the 
actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeds twenty H 
1035 
j 
1036 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A five years or a period of five years, whichever is least. The said Rule has 
been made applicable to those who are recruited after 26.10.60. Validity of 
that Rule was challenged before the High Court in Raj Kumar Gupta v. 
State of Haryana, (C.W.P. No. 11756 of 1989) and on 17 .9.91 the High Court 
declared it as invalid being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
B 
The Respondent made a representation sometime thereafter for 
refixation of his pension by giving him benefit of Rule 4.2. It was rejected 
by the State Government on the ground that the respondent at the time of 
his retirement was governed by the All India Services (Death-cum-Retire-
ment Benefits) Rules and not by the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II 
C and, therefore he was not entitled to claim the benefits of Rule. 4.2. It was 
also rejected on the ground that the amendment of22.2.1990 made in Rule 
16 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules was only prospective. 
The Respondent therefore filed a Writ Petition in the High Court 
and the same was allowed following its judgment in Raj Kumar Gupta v. 
D State of Haryana by holding that the cut-off date was arbitrary. The Sate, 
therefore filed the appeal before this Court. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Prior to 22.2.90 members of the Punjab Superior Judicial 
Service, in respect of their death-cum- retirement benefits were governed 
by the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules Volume 
II. Though the Respondent claimed the benefit of Rule 4.2 of the Punjab 
Civil Service Rules Volume II it was really by virtue of the amendment 
made in Rule 16 of the Punjab Superior Service Rules which made those 
F 
Rules applicable from 22.2.90. [1038-F-G] 
2. The amendment made in Rule 16 applies only to those who 
were/are in service and retired/retire after it has come into force. Therefore 
claim made by the respondent has to be regarded as misconceived and 
G without any substance. [1038-G-H] 
State of Punjab v. S.S. Dewan, (Civil Appeal No. 506 of 1992) (P & 
H), referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3095 of 
H 1997. 
STATE v. M.L. MIRCHEA[ NANAVATI,J.) 
1037 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.93 of the Punjab & A 
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 200 of 1993. 
Manoj Swarup (NIP) for the Appellants. 
K.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.