GAJINDER TREHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for declaring Rule 6 of Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Pension & Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 1999 (for brevity 'the 1999 Rules') (as amended), insofar as it deprives the counting of past service rendered in other affiliated colleges belonging to other State for pension, as wholly illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional. As a consequence of the aforesaid declaration, a further prayer has also been made for quashing order 02.012.2008 (P -8) declining the request made by the petitioner for counting of her previous service rendered by her as a Lecturer in SDP College, Ludhiana. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in History in S.D.P. College for Women, Ludhiana on 25.06.1968 (P -1 & P -2). She worked there till 1981. The S.D.P. College for Women, Ludhiana has been receiving grant -in -aid from the Punjab Government and the petitioner was a member of Contributory Provident Fund (for brevity 'CPF'), when she was serving at Ludhiana (P -4). She was paid CPF in the year 1982. She has offered to refund the amount of employer's share of the CPF along with interest which comes to '5592.38/ -, which she has got calculated from her earlier employer SDP College for Women, Ludhiana (P -9).

(2.) ON 28.07.1981, she applied for the post of Lecturer in K.L. Mehta Dayanand College for Women, Faridabad through proper channel. She was selected and appointed on 29.07.1981 and joined her duty at Faridabad in July, 1981. The Government of Haryana introduced a Pension Scheme for the employees working in the affiliated colleges and notified the 1999 Rules on 31.05.1999. According to Rule 6(iv) of 1999 Rules, it is postulated that the service of an employee is to qualify for retirement benefits, even if it is in one or more private affiliated colleges, receiving grant -in -aid under the same management but the service rendered in other colleges would not count for pension. The Rules were amended on 24.01.2001 and it was clarified that only service rendered on aided sanctioned post in any aided college in the State of Haryana was to count. The service rendered by the petitioner at Ludhiana was not counted as qualifying service for grant of senior/ selection grade and as such she filed CWP No. 18159 of 1998, which was allowed on 09.10.2001. The learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of her petition along with other bunch of petitions, had come to the conclusion that Haryana Government vide letter dated 27.02.2001 had accepted the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, issued on 27.11.1990. Accordingly, it has allowed the benefit of previous service to the Lecturers towards the grant of senior/selection grade after determining their past service as per Rules under the Career Advancement Scheme, subject to fulfillment of the conditions by the Lecturer. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

(3.) THE petitioner retired on 31.10.2007 and was given pension vide order dated 02.04.2008 (P -6). However, on checking it was found that the service rendered by her from 10.07.1968 to 28.07.1981 at S.D.P. College for Women, Ludhiana was not taken into consideration. Accordingly, she sent a representation to the respondents to count her entire services as qualifying service for the purposes of calculating her pension and other retrial benefits (P -7). However, her representation had been rejected and she was informed vide letter dated 02.12.2008 (P -8) that the benefit of past service rendered by her at Ludhiana could not be given towards pension as her case was not covered under the 1999 Rules, as has already been noticed above. Feeling aggrieved by the bar created by Rule 6 of the 1999 Rules, the petitioner has challenged its constitutional validity in the instant petition.