SITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition seeks for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 5.5.1997 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Social Welfare Department rejecting the plea made by the petitioners for extension of pension scheme to the class of workmen working as field staff in the Social Welfare Department. The claim of the workmen for consideration had been directed at the instance of an order of this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 17697 of 1994 when the very same petitioners had sought for the relief that the Management shall provide for introduction of a pension scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund.

(2.) THE claim was on the basis of a matter of policy statement issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Director, Social Welfare that the Governor of Haryana had been pleased to extend the benefit of gratuity and pension to the employees of Haryana State Social Welfare Advisory Board w.e.f. 1.4.1979 subject to certain conditions. Subsequent to this communication made on 3.3.1981 the Government of Haryana announced on 26.6.1992 the introduction of Pension Scheme in lieu of contributory funds in Boards and Corporations in Haryana which were fully owned by the State Government.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the State Mr. Nalwa would defend the action of the government by reference to the fact that the field staff of the Social Welfare Board was fully funded by the State Government while the administration and extensions at the headquarters was shared with the Central Government on the 50:50 basis. The Social Welfare Board itself is not a creature of any State statute but a subsidiary of the Social Welfare Board established by the Centre. The field staff were employed on projects and the State Government was bound to take care of the entire extensions with no assistance from the Centre and it could not be taken as a wholly owned State Government undertaking to which the Government policy could apply. It was further submitted on behalf of the Government that there was a qualitative difference in the works at the projects and the nature of duties for the workmen and the work and the duties carried out at the head quarters. The persons working in the headquarters formed a different class and a different category. Consequently, even on the issue of extension of the Scheme of Pension, it was based on an intelligible differentia and hence a complaint of violation under Article 14 would not be available.