Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(P&H) 4653

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Kidar Nath Kohli And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Others - Respondent
CWP No. 1486 of 2018 (O&M) With CWP No. 1441 of 2018 (O&M) With CWP No. 29348 of 2017 (O&M) With CWP No. 17160 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-12-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Anil Kumar Aggarwal and Jitender Nara, Advocates, for the Appellants; Pankaj Mulwani, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Advocates, for the Respondent; Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 3 in CWP No. 1486 of 2018; Vivek Thakur, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 1486 of 2018; Harshit Jain, Advocate for Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate, for the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in CWP No. 1441 of 2018; Rahul Jaswal, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 5 in CWP No. 1441 of 2018

The main legal point established is the State's duty to implement court judgments and grant relief to similarly situated employees, avoiding discrimination in granting service benefits.

Headnote:
Pension Scheme - Aided Schools - Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2001 - The court discussed the history of the pension scheme for retired teachers of aided schools and the challenges faced by the petitioners in obtaining benefits under the 2001 Rules. The court emphasized the directions given by the Supreme Court and the State's delay in formulating the scheme, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioners and directing the respondents to implement the 2001 Rules for the grant of benefits.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, retired teachers of aided schools, sought the benefit of the Pension Scheme formulated by the State. They were denied benefits under the 2001 Rules due to the cut-off date of 11.05.1998, despite the Supreme Court's directions to grant pension and other benefits to aided school teachers.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State's delay in formulating the pension scheme and the denial of benefits to similarly situated teachers were unjust. It ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the respondents to implement the 2001 Rules for the grant of benefits.
Issues: The issues involved the denial of pension benefits to retired teachers of aided schools based on the cut-off date and the State's failure to implement the Supreme Court's directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits under the 2001 Rules, emphasizing the State's duty to grant relief to similarly situated employees and avoid discrimination in granting service benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to implement the 2001 Rules for the grant of benefits to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - By this judgment, four petitions bearing No. CWP No. 1486 of 2018, CWP No. 1441 of 2018, CWP No. 29348 of 2017 and CWP No. 17160 of 2018 are being disposed of as common questions of facts are involved therein.

2. Separate replies (in CWP No. 1441 of 2018) on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5 have been filed in Court today. The same are taken on record.

3. In the present case, the petitioners are the retired Teachers of the Aided Schools, who have approached this Court for grant of benefit of the Pension Scheme, which was formulated by the respondents-State. All the petitioners retired from the Government Aided Schools prior to 11.05.1998. It is not disputed that all the petitioners were working against the permanent sanctioned post. The petitioners have been denied the benefit of Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "2001 Rules") on the ground that the cut off date fixed for being eligible for the grant of benefits under 2001 Rules is 11.05.1998 and, therefore, as the petitioners retired prior to the said date and were not the employees of the Aided Schools on the date of the promulgation of 2001 Rules, they cannot be extended the benefits of the said Rules.

4. Government of Haryana was not extending the benefit of allowances pension and other retiral benefits, which were admissible to the Government School Teachers, to the Teachers of the Aided Schools. A writ petition bearing CWP No. 5353 of 1984 was filed claiming the benefits of allowances pension and other retiral benefits as being given to the Government School Teachers. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 21.02.1985. Against the said judgment, some of the Teachers along with the Union known as Haryana State Adyapak Sangh filed an SLP before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was allowed on 28.07.1988. A direction was given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the Teachers of the Aided Schools must be given the same pay scale and dearness allowances as admissible to the Government School Teachers. Further, a direction was given to the State Government to formulate a Scheme in respect of grant of pension and other retiral benefits to the Teachers of the Aided Schools as being granted to the Teachers of the Government Schools.

5. Despite the fact that a clear direction was given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1988 (4) SCC 571 , still the State Government did not formulate the Scheme for grant of pension and other retiral benefits to the Teachers of the Aided Schools. The matter was again taken up by the Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh by filing Civil Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 15049 of 1989 in Civil Appeal No. 2366 of 1988 which came to be decided on 21.02.1990 reported as 1999 (Supplementary) SCC 306 and Hon'ble the Supreme Court granted more time to State to formulate the Scheme/Policy for the parity in respect of pension and other retiral benefits also between the Teachers of the Aided Schools and Teachers of the Government Schools. As per the directions given, the said Scheme/Policy was to be formulated by 31.12.1990.

6. Despite the fact that a clear direction was given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, still no Scheme/Policy was framed by the State and ultimately another writ petition bearing CWP No. 7945 of 1997 was filed by the Teaches of the Aided Schools for grant of pension and other retiral benefits as admissible to the Teachers of the Government Schools. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 09.12.1999 with the following directions :-

"It may be concluded that the petitioners are entitled to parity in respect of other allowances and other retiral benefits also. The matter has already been examined by the Supreme Court and a scheme was required to be formulated by the State Government in consultation with the managements of the privately manage

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(P&H) 4653

The main legal point established is the State's duty to implement court judgments and grant relief to similarly situated employees, avoiding discrimination in granting service benefits.

Cases Referred (2)