HARI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of a bunch of nine petitions because common questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being referred from CWP No. 15067 of 2007.

(2.) IN all these petitions the petitioners are employees of Zila Parishads' and Panchayat Samitis of Punjab. They were member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) and on attaining the age of superannuation they accepted all the benefits arising from the CPF Scheme. Their service conditions are governed by the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which has repealed the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Act, 1961. There was no pension scheme and they were continuing as member of the CPF Scheme. They claimed by filing representations that benefit of pension be granted to them with effect from 1.1.1986. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Rupnagar, recommended to the Government that pension be given to the employees of the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, vide letter dated 12.12.1994 (P-6). On 11.5.1995, the Government appears to have taken a decision in principle to grant pension to such employees. Some writ petitions were filed thereafter which led to the filing of even contempt petition. Eventually, a pension scheme was implemented with effect from 1.7.1999 which was fixed as the cut-off-date as well. The employees appointed on or after 1.7.1999 were held entitled to pension and the employees like the petitioners, who have retired earlier were to get benefit of CPF Scheme. Therefore, some objections were raised against the cut-off-date by the petitioners (P-7 and P-8). They asserted that in respect of municipal employees, the gazette notification was issued for implementation of pension scheme of 28.7.1994 and it was given retrospective effect from April 1990 (P- 9). Similar instance was taken from the pension scheme framed in respect of the employees of private aided schools. The objections did not weigh with the respondents. The scheme was eventually notified in the official gazette on 14.7.2000 (P-12) with cut-off-date of 1.7.1999. The petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 13572 of 2000. Similar writ petitions were also filed by employees of other Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, including C.W.P. No. 15808 of 2000. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 1.10.2001 (P-13). The writ petition was allowed and cut-off-date of 1.7.1999, fixed in Rule 3 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Employees Pension and Provident Fund Rules, 2000, was declared unconstitutional and a direction was issued to the Government to re-examine the issue of grant of pensionary benefits to the employees keeping in view the policy decision taken on 11.5.1995 and the fact that the rules framed for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Market Committees and the Municipalities were given retrospective effect. The operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench reads thus :-

(3.) IN pursuance to the aforementioned directions issued by the Division Bench, the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, decided the issue and rejected operation of the pension scheme with effect from 11.5.1995 by citing the ground of weak financial position of the State exchequer, vide order dated 10.5.2002 (P-14). The pension liability in respect of the employees of these institutions who retired between 11.5.1995 to 1.7.1999 was worked out to be Rs. 18.35 crores and in return the institutional share of Contributory Provident Fund along with interest was worked out only Rs. 1.75 crores. It was further observed that although broad policy decision to release the pension was taken on 11.5.1995 but action under the scheme to recover contribution of provident fund could begun after the notification of the rules for pension scheme. It has also been pointed out that if the pension scheme is implemented with retrospective effect from 11.5.1995 then the scheme itself would totally collapse and there would be resentment/litigation. The Financial Commissioner also referred to Section 2(ze) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, by stating that Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads were local bodies and framing of any pension scheme to its employees is not the obligation of the State Government. Explaining the distinction between the Market Committee, pension contribution has been levied whereas in the case of Panchayati Raj institutions pension is to be given out of the pension fund by pooling only institution share. Accordingly, the Financial Commissioner expressed the inability of the Government by pointing the distinction between the Market Committees and Municipal Committees and further held that the decision of the Government would be without any prejudice to the Special Leave Petition which was filed against the Division Bench judgment dated 1.10.2001. It is appropriate to mention that the view taken by the Division Bench was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6762 of 2002. Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that the appeal was rendered infructuous as the respondent State of Punjab had implemented the judgment by passing order dated 10.5.2002 to which reference has already been made in the preceding para. The observation of their Lordships' of Hon'ble the Supreme Court while disposing of Civil Appeal No. 6762 of 2002 reads thus :-