MOTIA DEVI Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shri K. L. Gulati, the husband of Appellant 1, was an employee of the Faridabad Notified Area Committee. Subsequently, the Faridabad notified Area Committee was renamed as "faridabad Complex administration" (for short "the Administration"). The Administration has since been renamed as "the Municipal Corporation". On 31/10/1984, Shri k. L. Gulati retired from the service and on 3/6/1992, he died. It is not disputed that on retirement, Shri K. L. Gulati opted for provident fund, which scheme was applicable to the employees of the Administration. The State of haryana, by a notification dated 5/3/1993, provided for pension scheme to the employees of the Municipal Corporation. The scheme provided that it shall come into force with effect from 16/4/1992. The appellants herein, who are the wife and children of Shri K. L. Gulati, filed a suit for mandatory injunction for the grant of pensionary benefits to them. The trial court decreed the suit and the appeal preferred against the said judgment before the first appellate court was dismissed. Aggrieved, the defendant-respondent preferred a second appeal before the High Court, which was allowed and the suit was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the plaintiff-appellants are in appeal before us.

(2.) Learned counsel urged that the High Court fell in error in holding that the notification dated 15/4/1992 was not applicable to the employees, who retired prior to 16/4/1992. We do not find any merit in the arguments. The scheme itself provided that it shall come into force with effect from 16/4/1992 and will apply to those who were appointed on or before 16/4/1992 on full-time regular basis or were working immediately before 16/4/1992 and opted for those Rules. It is not disputed that Shri K. L. Gulati had already retired in 1984 and was not working on the relevant date i. e. 16/4/1992. Under such circumstances, we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

(3.) It was then urged that in any case by virtue of the notification dated 13/1/1975, the appellants were entitled to pensionary benefits. We also do not find any merit in this argument. Note 1 of Rule 3.16 of the Punjab Civil services Rules excluded the application of pension schemes to the employees of the Municipalities. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.