SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Petitioner joined the services of Respondent-Department on 4.5.1960, as Junior Basic Trained Teacher. She was given the benefit of Trained Graduate Teacher for the purpose of fixation of pay etc. under the Government orders. She was inducted as Trained Graduate Teacher since 1978 after she acquired qualification of B. Ed. She superannuated on 30.9.1994. She was paid gratuity amounting to Rs. 60,501/- vide communication dated 25.11.1994. Respondent-State has issued memorandum dated 15.5.1997 whereby dearness allowance as admissible to the employees as on 1.4.1993 (linked to AICPI level 1201.66) was to be treated as dearness pay for reckoning emoluments for the purpose of death-cum-retirement gratuity. However, in the memorandum cut-off date, i. e. 1.4.1995 has been prescribed for the purpose of benefit of notification dated 15.5.1997.

(2.) Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that the cut-off date, i. e. 1.4.1995 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She further contended that all the retirees constitute homogeneous class and they could not be discriminated against on the basis of cut-off date, i. e. 1.4.1995.

(3.) Mr. P. M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the memorandum Annexure A-3 dated 15.5.1997 has been issued by following Punjab Pattern. He further contended that some cutoff date was required to be fixed/prescribed by the State for the purpose of extending facilities to its employees and the same cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary.