LAXMI DEVI AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL) 1 Exemption granted from filing certified copies of Annexures P - 7 and P -8 and the same are taken on record. CM stands disposed of. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the communication dated 22.10.2013 (Annexure P -5), vide which the representation of the petitioner for granting her the benefit of notification dated 17.04.2009 (Annexure P -1), vide which the petitioner claimed benefit of counting her 22 years, 8 months and 3 days qualifying service as requisite period of service which would entitle her to minimum of 50% of the emoluments under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Service (Revised Pension) Part -II Rules, 2009 (for short "2009 Rules") and enhancing her pension accordingly with effect from the date of notification, i.e., 17.04.2009.It is the assertion of the petitioner that she has retired as a

(2.) LECTURER on 30.06.2007 after completion of 22 years, 8 months and 3 days of qualifying service from Government College for Women, Karnal. Claiming the benefit of 50% of the emoluments, as she fulfilled the qualifying service as per Rule 4 entitling her to the benefit of 50% of the last drawn emolument as pension was not being decided, the petitioner preferred CWP No.20130 of 2013 in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P -4) directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner. In pursuance to the said directions issued by this Court, the Director, Higher Education, Haryana - respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 22.10.2013 (Annexure P - 5) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The reason assigned for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner has since retired prior to the date of notification, i.e., 17.04.2009 and she would not be entitled to the benefit as has been claimed by her.

(3.) IN the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the prayer as made by the petitioner cannot be accepted as it has categorically been held that the benefit will only incur to those employees who retire after the date of notification and those who have retired prior thereto cannot get the benefit of Rule 4 of 2009 Rules.