STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. R K SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the matter of grant of pensionary benefits to employees of the provincialised Local Body Schools, a policy decision was taken by the Punjab Government as incorporated in its letter of August 2,1973 (Annexure P/1) to the effect that such employees, who were above the age of 30 years on October 1,1957 and who retired from service before November L 1966 from areas falling within the re- organised State of Punjab may be given pension with effect from November 18,1972 on the basis of their length of service subject to the further conditions mentioned therein. This benefit was sought to be denied to the writ petitioner-R.K. Singh who had retired as Head Master from the Government High School, Manimajta, on the ground that before re-organisation he had been transferred to and had retired from Manimajra, an area which fell not within the re-organised State of Punjab, but the Union Territory of Chandigarh. No exception can, indeed betaken to the Judgment of the learned Single Judge holdiag the writ petitioner entitled to pension under the policy decision.

(2.) After going through the matter and hearing learned counsel for the parties, no occasion is provided to differ with the observations made and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge, for in our view, the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government clearly offends the equality clause of the Constitution of India and in effect operates unevenly on persons similarly situated. It is explicity clear from the policy decision Annexure P-l that all these employees who were above the age of 30" years on October 1,1957 and who retired from service before November 1,1966 from the areas failing in the present re-organised State of Punjab, were entitled to pensions with effect from December 18,1972 on the basis of their length of service. It is beyond dispute that respondent No. 1 fulfilled all the requirements envisaged by the policy decision extent that the area from where he retired did not form part of the re-organised State of Punjab. While doing to, the learned Single Judge placed strong reliance on the observations of the apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India, 1979 AIR(SC) 1628 for holding that the writ petitioner was also entitled to pension under the policy decision.

(3.) The only purpose behind the policy decision seems to benefit the employees of the provincialised Local Body Schools who had retired from service before November 1,1966 but there is no rationale or justifiable ground behind the policy decision to deprive the employees like the writ petitioner of pensionary benefits only on the grounds that he retired from an area now forming part of the Union Territory and not of the re-organised State of Punjab. There is no doubt that the counterpart of respondent No. 1 who retired from the areas forming part of the re-organised State of Punjab were to be benefitted. So far as the stand of the appellants that at the' time of retirement, respondent 1 was not eligible to receive pension and the right to claim pension was conferred only by the said policy decision is concerned, it has not been shown on the record that the latter was not otherwise eligible for the said benefits. Thus, the departure on the part of the State Government in not adhering to well settled principles of equality must, therefore, be clothed, as irrational, unreasonable and discriminatory.