GIAN CHAND WALIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order a bunch of writ petitions (CWP Nos. 5259, 5343, 5344, 5345, 5346, 6091, 6092, 6093, 6094, 6095, 6096, 6097, 6098, 6099, 6100, 9829, 13060 and 15218 of 1993) are being disposed of Main judgment is prepared in CWP No. 5259 of 1993.

(2.) After re -organisation of the States Municipal Committees in Haryana continued to be governed by the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act as applicable to Haryana. The employees of such Municipal Committees were not State employees. Their transfers from one Municipal Committee to another was not contemplated. They were employees of different Municipal Committees as such. Haryana Municipal Committee Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was made applicable in the State of Haryana with the result that the employees of Municipal Committees were provincialised. Since then those employees were raising demand for enforcement of pension scheme. It may be observed that employees of the Municipal Committees earlier used to be governed by Contributory Provident Fund Schemes. Ultimately State of Haryana accepted the demand of the employees of the Municipal Committees in this respect. Haryana Amendment Act, 1992 (Haryana Act No. 14 of 1992) (for short called 'the Act' of 1991) was passed which received assent of the Governor of Haryana on April 8, 1992. The notification of this Act was published in Haryana Government Gazette (Extra) on April 16, 1992. Amendments were made in Ss. 38 and 57 of the Haryana Municipal Act authorising the Municipal Committees in the State of Haryana for providing funds for pension as well. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (m) of Sub Sec. 1) of Sec. 257 read with Ss. 38 and 39 of the Haryana Municipal Act, the Haryana Government issued notification dated March 5, 1993 (Annexure P -1) framing Rules called as the Haryana Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1993 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). Such Rules came into force with effect form April 16,1992. Rule 2 of the Rules provider: -

(3.) The petitioners in all the writ petitions retired from service of different Municipal Committees prior to April 16, 1992 and thus they were not entitled to the benefit of these Pension Rules. They have approached this Court in this set of writ petitions claiming that the State Government arbitrarily fixed April 16, 1992 as the date for enforcement of the Pension Rules which resulted in creating discrimination between the retirees. The petitioners who had earlier retired were willing to surrender the Contributory Provident Fund already drawn by them and there are some of the petitioners who have not withdrawn the same. They claim benefit of the Pension Rules aforesaid. They made representation also in this respect which did not bear fruit.