The court established the validity of the State's decision to adopt a cut-off date for pension calculation, considering financial implications and policy decisions.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through this petition, 5 writ petitioners, who have retired from the aided sanctioned posts as Associate Professors from various non-Government aided colleges during the period 01.01.2006 to 30.6.2006, pray for the parity in the method of calculating the amount of pension with their colleagues who retired on or after the cut off date i.e.12.10.2010.

2. The State has enacted 'The Haryana affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979. Under the aforesaid Act, the State by notifying the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as the 1999 Rules) has made a provision for the grant of pension to the employees like the writ petitioners who have retired from the aided sanctioned posts of non-government aided colleges. The rules were amended in the year 2001. The petitioners are getting pension in accordance with the 1999 Rules. As per Rule 9, the pension is to be calculated at the rate of 50% of average pay of the last ten months, which is extracted as under:-

“9. Superannuation pension:- (1) All employees shall be entitled to the superannuation pension from the date they attain the age of Sixty years.

(2) Pension shall be calculated at the rate of fifty percent of the average pay of the last ten months. The admissibility of full pension shall be on completion of thirty three years qualifying service. The amount of pension is to be determined by length of service. The length of qualifying service for this purpose shall be calculated in terms of completed six monthly period and fraction of a year equal to three months or more shall be treated as a completed six monthly period. The formula will be as under:-

10 months Qualifying Service (counted in terms Pension Average Emoluments X of completed half yearly period)2 66 If the pension so calculated for the qualifying service of thirty three years falls short of Rs.1275/- (one thousand two hundred seventy five only) the same shall be raised to Rs.1275/- (one thousand two hundred seventy five only) in all cases.”

3. Pursuant to the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission, the State of Haryana revised the pension scheme of govt. employees as well as of the retirees before 12.10.2010. The petitioners are also receiving revised pension. They are aggrieved by the circulars dated 12.10.2010 which has been further clarified/reiterated vide memo dated 18.04.2016. In the aforesaid circular, it has been provided that the employees who have retired on or after 01.01.2006 but before the date of issue of notification dated 12.10.2010, will continue to be governed by the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1999 as regards to the manner of calculating the amount of pension payable.

4. Among various recommendations made by the sixth pay commission, one of the changes which has been accepted by the Government is to calculate the pension at 50% of the last pay drawn by the employee, instead of, in accordance with the Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1999 which provides for taking last 10 month's average pay to work out the amount of pension payable . They claim that the decision of the State has resulted in discrimination viz a viz the employees who retired on or after 12.10.2010. They mainly rely upon the judgment passed by a Five Judges Bench in D.S.Nakara vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. It has been contended that the pensioners from non-Government aided colleges form a harmonious group and therefore, the discrimination in between the pensioners on the basis of cut off date of retirement is arbitrary and illegal.

5. On the other hand, the State has contested the petition by submitting that the petitioners and other similarly situated retirees from non-government aided colleges became entitled to the pension for the first time as per Pension Rules, 1999. Before the enforcement of the 1999 Rules, all identically situated employees including the petitioners herein, who had opted for pension, gave their respe