LABH SINGH KADIAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five petitioners in the present petition have retired from Private Government aided schools before May 11, 1998 after having rendered full time regular service against permanent sanctioned posts. Though the petitioners as members of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh, an association of private Government aided schools had been contesting to claim parity with teachers of Government schools, so far as allowances, pension and other retiral benefits are concerned w.e.f. 1984 and had been able to get relief from the Apex Court vide judgment in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana, 1990 Supp1 SCC 306 on February 21, 1990 and : CWP No. 7945 of 1997-Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh (Recognized Schools) and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2000 1 SCT 960 decided on December 9, 1999 yet they were not able to derive the financial benefits of Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2001, hereinafter referred to as '2001 Rules', only because they attained the age of superannuation before the cut-off date fixed by the Government as May 11, 1998. A legal battle was initiated by the petitioners in the year 1984 which culminated in the victory in the shape of framing of 2001 Rules but the petitioners have been deprived of the benefit of the pension scheme as the said 2001 Rules do not apply to the employees who retired from the sanctioned posts before May 11, 1998, as per Rule 2 of the said 2001 Rules. Brief facts which are relevant for the decision of the present case are that the petitioners were teachers of private government aided schools. They rendered full time regular service against permanent aided posts sanctioned by the State Government in different Government aided institutions of Haryana mentioned against their names in the heading of the petition. The petitioners initiated a movement for parity of pay scales of teachers of private aided Schools with those of the Government Schools claiming that the duties and functions of the said sets of teachers are similar and identical. As the Government was not extending the benefits of allowances, pension and other retiral benefits which were admissible to the Government School teachers, to the teachers of the aided Schools, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5353 of 1984 for parity of allowances, pension and other retrial benefits with the Government School teachers. The said writ petition was dismissed in 1984. The petitioners alongwith their Union i.e. Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh filed an SLP in the Supreme Court in which leave was granted and SLP filed by the petitioners was allowed on July 28, 1988, vide historical judicial dictum - Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1988 4 SCC 571. The Apex Court gave a direction that the teachers of the aided schools must be given same pay scales and Dearness Allowance as are admissible to the teachers of the Government Schools. Regarding the other allowances, the Apex Court directed the State Government to formulate a scheme relating to parity. The State Government did not formulate any policy regarding the parity between the two sets of teachers as such the petitioners alongwith their Union again filed an SLP. The said case was decided on February 21, 1990 vide judgment reported as Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and others v. State of Haryana, 1990 Supp1 SCC 306 granting more time to the State to formulate the policy for parity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated July 13, 1990 extended the time uptill December 31, 1990 for formulating the parity policy. The State Government, despite a direction failed to frame any policy till December 31, 1990 as a result of which the Apex Court further extended the time till June 30, 1991 vide order dated April 4, 1991 passed in C.A. No. 2366 of 1989. Despite the above said directions, the State Government failed to frame any policy as such the petitioners filed a Contempt Petition before the Apex Court. The Apex Court while deciding the said petition held that the teachers of the aided Schools are entitled to the City Compensatory allowance, house rent allowance and gratuity. So far as the question of entitlement of other retrial benefits such as pension, medical allowance, LTC and bonus etc. are concerned, these were left open. The petitioners thereafter filed a petition in the Apex Court bearing C.A. No. 578 of 1984 but the Apex Court dismissed the said petition on October 3, 1994 but observed that dismissal of said petition will not preclude the petitioners from approaching the High Court. The petitioners thereafter filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 7945 of 1997 for grant of benefits of similar allowances, pension and other retrial benefits, as admissible to the teachers of Government Schools. The said petition was allowed on December 9, 1999 with the following directions:-

(2.) The petitioners claimed that when the above said writ petition was allowed, the State Government had submitted that in the month of May 1998, the State had approved the scheme with regard to the payment of pension to the teachers of aided Schools. Later on pension was granted to the teachers of private aided schools vide 2001 Rules but a cut-off date i.e. May 11, 1998 was provided in the said Rules, for the purpose of pension. Relevant part of Rules 3 and 4 of 2001 pension Rules are reproduced as under:-

(3.) Petitioners claim that the cut-off date was not mentioned by the State Government while filing written statement in CWP No. 7945 of 1997 decided on December 9, 1999 rather claim of pension of the petitioners was admitted at that time by the respondents before the High Court as such the writ was allowed and the petitioners were held entitled for pension. A copy of the judgment in CWP No. 7945 of 1997 has been placed on record as annexure P-1 which indicates that the petitioners have been granted the benefit of parity of allowances and other retiral benefits as have been granted to the teachers of Government Schools. The Pension Rules of year 2001 were made applicable from retrospective date i.e. from May 11, 1998 CWP No. 20085 of 2003 [9] and were made applicable to the employees who retired from sanctioned posts on or after May 11, 1998. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been deprived of their valuable right to pension despite the fact that they had fought several rounds of litigation for providing pension to the teachers of private aided institutions. The 2001 Rules are the result of the litigation initiated by the petitioners. The petitioners filed a Misc. application No. 11504 of 2000 in CWP No. 7945 of 1997 which was decided on December 9, 1999 praying that the above said pension Rules made effective from May 11, 1998 and notified in the Gazette of May 31, 1999 may be directed to be admissible to the members of the petitioners Association including those who have retired during the pendency of the litigation. The said Civil misc. was dismissed on December 19, 2002 with an observation that such plea cannot be raised and decided by a civil misc. application. The petitioners thereafter made a representation to the concerned authorities that their claim to the pension had been admitted by the State and the Management of the concerned institutions and no point was raised regarding the cut off date of retirement thus by principle of estoppel, they were entitled to the benefit of pension. The petitioners have averred that the cut off date provided by the respondents in the notification has got no nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and that the date could not be picked from the hat but it must have some rational nexus to the object. The State Government has fixed the cut-off date in an unreasonable and unjustified manner in order to debar the petitioners from getting the benefits of the litigation initiated by them in the year 1984. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents in depriving them the benefit of pension despite the directions of Apex Court and this Court vide judgment annexure P-1.