RIKHI RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of this petition as well as C. W. P. Nos. 12588 of 1994, 12286 of 1994 and 12287 of 1994 as common question of law and factor is involved in all these cases.

(2.) THE petitioners in all these writ petitions were the employees in the privately managed recognised aided Schools in the State of Punjab. They all had retired from service prior to February 5, 1987. Their service conditions were governed by the provisions of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service.) Act, 1979, and the Rules made thereunder. The Rules made under the Act are known as Punjab Privately Managed and Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called ' the 1981 Rules' ). By a Notification issued in the Punjab Government Gazette dated January 16, 1991, the 1981 Rules were amended by the Rules called the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) (First Amendment) Rules, 1991. By the amending Rules apart from substituting Rule 22 of 1981 Rules, Rule 22-A was introduced which is in the following terms :

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, clause 3 (2) (ii) of the Scheme creates an invidious discrimination between the two sets of retirees - one, who retired prior to February 5, 1987, and the other who might have retired or retire after February 5, 1987. The submission of the learned counsel was that all the retirees from the privately managed recognised aided schools form one class whether they retired prior to February 5, 1987, or thereafter. The cut off date (i. e. February 5, 1987) fixed under clause 3 (2) (ii) of the Scheme is wholly artificial and has no relation to the object sought to be achieved by the introduction of the retirement benefits Scheme. The counsel went on to contend that the Government has by drawing an artificial classification between those who retired before February 5, 1987, and those, who retired after that date, has violated the letter and spirit of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, Article 14 permits reasonable classification but,, according to the counsel, that classification must satisfy the twin test of the same being founded on an intelligible critarion which distinguishes the person or things which are grouped together from those left out and the said differentia must be shown to have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the relevant Rules and Regulations. The State Government has to justify the fixing of the cut off date as February 5, 1987 in the present case. The primary reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was on the judgment of the apex Court reported as D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1983 Supreme Court 130, and some other judgments of this Court and Supreme Court of India, to which we are not making any reference as according to us, the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been fully answered in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1992 Supreme Court 767.