IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 04, 2025 Shanti Devi and another .....Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present: Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. R.S. Pandher, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

LISA GILL, J.

1. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside Rule 1(3) of Punjab Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1994 (for short – ‘1994 Rules’) to the extent that cut off date for grant of pension to the employees who retired before 01.04.1990 is discriminatory. Petitioners also seek quashing of order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P7) whereby claim of petitioners for family pension has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Krishan Lal @ Kishan Lal i.e. husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Clerk with Department of Local Bodies, Punjab in 1938 on regular basis. He performed his duties with honesty and dedication without any complaint or inquiry being initiated against him. He was promoted to the post of Sanitary Daroga on 16.07.1948. He retired in the year 1977 on attaining the age of superannuation and unfortunately passed away on 29.04.1982 leaving behind his widow - petitioner No. 1 aged 92 years, son – petitioner No. 2 aged 53 years, and two daughters who are not arrayed as parties to this petition. At the time of retirement, there was no provision of pension being paid to the employee. Case set up by petitioners is that as per 1994 Rules, provision of pension was made available for employees who were either working or had retired after 01.04.1990. Petitioner No. 1, it is stated, submitted representation dated 16.04.2024 claiming benefit of family pension. When no action was taken thereon, CWP-11766-2024 was filed, which was disposed of on 20.05.2024 with a direction to respondent to decide representation dated 16.04.2024 within three months by passing speaking order. Resultantly, order dated 14.08.2024 was passed by Executive Officer, Nagar Council, Sri Mukshtar Sahib (Annexure P7) whereby claim of petitioners for family pension was declined while observing that pension is not to be released to the employees who retired before 01.04.1990. Aggrieved therefrom, present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argues that cut off date prescribed in Rule 3 of 1994 Rules is illegal, arbitrary and wholly discriminatory, rendering unequal treatment of a homogeneous lot of employees. Rule 3 of 1994 Rules reads as under: -

“(3) They shall apply to the employees of the Corporations, -

(i) who are appointed on or after the first day of April, 1990 on whole time regular basis, and (ii) who were working immediately, before the first day of April, 1990 on whole time regular basis and opt for these rules:

Provided that the employees who were working immediately before the first day of April, 1990 and who retired during the period between the first day of April, 1990 and the date of publication of these rules in the Official Gazette, shall have the option to opt for these rules within a period of four months from the date of publication of these rules, subject to the condition that they shall have to refund the Corporation's contribution towards their Contributory Provident Fund including interest thereon received by them together with simple interest on the whole amount at the rate of ten per cent per annum from the date of withdrawal to the date of repayment.”

4. It is submitted that employees, who have retired prior to 01.04.1990, are being put to prejudice without any rationale or legitimate cause and class within a class is being created, which is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara versus Union of India 1983 (1) SCC 305. It is, thus, prayed t