The main legal point established in the judgment is that rights and benefits already earned or acquired under existing rules cannot be taken away by amending the rules with retrospective effect.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. These matters are taken up through hybrid mode.

2. All these Writ Petitions have been filed by the Jr. Lecturers of various districts, in Class-II of OES(HSB) in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-200-10500, seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties in the nature of a writ of Mandamus. The Petition calls into question and challenges the action of the Opposite Parties in not enrolling the petitioners under OCS (Pension) rules, 1992 though their selection is prior to commencement of the new pension scheme. Further, the petitioner challenges the discriminatory action of the Opposite Parties in treating the petitioners in a different manner in comparison to the persons selected and appointed in the same recruitment process.

3. The point that arises for consideration in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same. Hence all these Writ Petitions are clubbed together and being disposed of by this common judgment/order.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the sub-stratum of the matter presented before this court remains that the petitioners were appointed as Jr. Lecturers in Class-II of OES (HSB) in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-200-10500 pursuant to advertisement dated 14.03.2002 bearing Advertisement No-5 of 2001-02, issued on behalf of the Orissa Public Service Commission.

5. Subsequently, vide notification dated 17th September 2005, the Government of Orissa amended the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992. As per the amended Rules, all persons appointed under the Govt. of Orissa w.e.f. 1st January, 2005 shall not be eligible for pension as defined under sub-rule-1 of rule3 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

6. It is argued on behalf of learned counsels for the Petitioners Ms. B.K. Pattanaik that even though the advertisement, selection list and the appointment thereto were made prior to 17th September 2005, the amended Rules came into force with retrospective application w.e.f. 01.01.2005.

7. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that even though the matter was brought to notice of the authorities, the same was disregarded on the ground that the Petitioner had not approached any judicial forum.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties Mr S.K Samal, AGA, contended that the relief claimed by the Petitioners is contrary to the rule and the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed as the same is hit by the provisions of Sub-rule (4) of Rule-3 of O.C.S (Pension) Rules, 1992.

9. The point that arises for consideration in all these Writ Petitions is "whether a rule made with retrospective effect can take away the right vested on the petitioners”. The further question to be dealt with is as to whether the opposite parties by allowing some of the Jr. Lecturers to be governed by the Old Pension Rules have discriminated the petitioners thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

10. In this regard, we must stress upon the judgment of Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Railway Board v. C.R Rangadhamai, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4174-82 OF 1995. The Court having held that right to receive pension is a right vested under Right to Property, made certain observations as under:

“It can, therefore, be said that a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retrospectivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed, e.g., promotion or pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively.”

11. Further, in para-24 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in very strong terms observed that-

“In many of these decisions the expressions "vested rights" or "accrued rights" have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as