The judgment emphasized the importance of financial implications in policy decisions and the distinct class of CPF Scheme retirees compared to pension retirees.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of nine petitions because common questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being referred from CWP No. 15067 of 2007.

2. In all these petitions the petitioners are employees of Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samitis of Punjab. They were member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) and on attaining the age of superannuation theyaccepted all the benefits arising from the CPF Scheme. Their service conditions are governed by the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 , which has repealed the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Act, 1961. There was no pension scheme and they were continuing as member of the CPF Scheme. They claimed by filing representations that benefit of pension be granted to them with effect from 1.1.1986, The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Rupnagar, recommended to the Government that pension be given to the employees of the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, vide letter dated 12.12.1994 (P-6). On 11.5.1995, the Government appears to have taken a decision in principle to grant pension to such employees. Some writ petitions were filed thereafter which led to the filing of even contempt petition. Eventually, a pension scheme was implemented with effect from 1.7.1999 which was fixed as the cut-off-date as well. The employees appointed on or after 1.7.1999 were held entitled to pension and the employees like the petitioners, who have retired earlier were to get benefit of CPF Scheme. Therefore, some objections were raised against the cut-off-date by the petitioners (P-7 & P-8). They asserted that in respect of municipal employees, the gazette notification was issued for implementation of pension scheme of 28.7.1994 and it was given retrospective effect from April 1990 (P- 9). Similar instance was taken from the pension scheme framed in respect of the employees of private aided schools. The objections did not. weigh with the respondents. The scheme was eventually notified in the official gazette on 14.7.2000 (P-12) with cut-off-date of 1.7.1999. The petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 13572 of 2000. Similar writ petitions were also filed by employees of other Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, including C.W.P. No. 15808 of 2000. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 1.10.2001 (P-13). The writ petition was allowed and cut-off-date of 1.7.1999, fixed in Rule 3 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Employees Pension and Provident Fund Rules, 2000, was declared unconstitutional and a direction was issued to the Government to re-examine the issue of grant of pensionary benefits to the employees keeping in view the policy decision taken on 11.5.1995 and the fact that the rules framed for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Market Committees and the Municipalities were given retrospective effect. The operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench reads thus :-

"Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The cut-off date fixed in the 2000 Rules for implementation of the pension scheme, i.e. 1.7.1999 is declared unconstitutional and struck down with a direction to the government to re- examine the issue of grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, keeping in view the policy decision taken by it vide Annexure P/11 and the fact that the rules framed for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Committees and Municipalities were given retrospective effect from 1.4.1983 and 1.4.1990 respectively. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

3. However, while discussing various arguments raised, Honble the Division Bench has also opined that financial burden on the State is a crucial consideration. Some of those observations in so far relevant to the issue herein read th