Mr. A.K. Sikri, C.J. (Oral) - Following facts need to be noted to decide the present writ petition:-

The petitioner herein was appointed as S.S.Master with respondent No.4-School, namely, Vaish Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani on 14.07.1969. The age of retirement, at the relevant time, was 58 years and on attaining this age, the petitioner was shown as retired on 31.05.1997. However, as the date of superannuation is the last date of the month in which an employee attains that age, his date of retirement was treated as 31.05.1997. There is a provision for extension of the services of meritorious teachers made by the State Government qua aided schools. As per this provision, grant-in-aid is generally allowed in respect of salary of the teachers upto the age of 58 years except in case of a teacher of exceptional merit which necessitates his retention in service after that age. This retention can be upto the age of 62 years subject to the condition that if such a teacher is to be retained beyond the age of 58 years, written approval of the State Government is required. Petitioner was given extension by the respondent No.4-School upto 17.05.2001 and on 17.05.2001 when he attained the age of 62 years, he was relieved. His pension and gratuity became payable after extended period. The gratuity in the sum of Rs.1,14,000/- was released to him on 26.03.2002 after its sanction on 05.10.2001 by the State Government. Likewise, pension in the sum of Rs.32,983/- was sanctioned on 06.03.2002, arrears of which were released on 06.08.2002. While calculating the pension, the services rendered by the petitioner upto 31.05.1997, i.e. the normal age of superannuation, only were taken into consideration and the period for which his services were extended, namely, from 01.06.1997 to 17.05.2001, were not counted. Because of the aforesaid, petitioner has three grievances which are as under:-

i) In the first instance, the petitioner claimed that the services rendered by him during the extended period, i.e. upto 17.05.2001, should have been taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of pension;

ii) Since pension and gratuity were released belatedly and not immediately after 17.05.2001, he should be paid interest on this delayed payment of pension and gratuity; and

iii) Relieving of the petitioner on 17.05.2001 was not proper and it should have been on the last date of the month i.e. on 31.05.2001, therefore, the petitioner should also be paid salary for the period from 18.05.2001 to 31.05.2001.

2. Insofar as the first relief claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that as per Rule 5(ii) of the Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension & Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2001, the period is to be counted only upto the normal age of superannuation which was 58 years in the case of the petitioner. On the application of this Rule, the respondents rightly took into consideration period of service only upto 31.05.1997. Conscious of the fact that this Rule comes in his way, the petitioner has challenged the vires of this Rule. The contention in this behalf is that in case of Government employees, when extension is given, extended period of service is also taken into consideration for the purposes of pension and denying this to the employees of the aided schools amounts to invidious discrimination thereby infringing the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, justification for incorporation of such a provision is given. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated as under:-

“However, only contributory Provident Fund was to be granted at that time. Thereafter in the welfare of teachers of aided Schools, the State of Haryana has framed rules for pension & pensionary benefits in the year-1999, which may called the Haryana Aided Schools (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rule-1999. It has come in to force w.e.f. 11.05.1998. Afterwards