http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2

PETITIONER:

THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

MANOHAR LAL MIRCHEA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/1997

BENCH:

K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI, K.VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

Present:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy

Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati

Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami

Manoj Swarup, Adv. (N/P) for the appellants

K.C. Dua, Adv. for the Respondent

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:

JU D G ME N T

NANAVATI, J.

Leave granted. Hard learned counsel for the appellants.

The respondent, through served, has not appeared either in

person or though a lawyer.

The respondent, who had by 2.4.567 years' standing at

the Bar, joined Punjab Civil Service(Judicial) onthat

date. He was subsequently promoted and became a member of

the Punjab Civil Service (judicial) on that date. He was

subsequently promoted and became a member of the Punjab

Superior Judicial Service. Heretiredas a District and

Sessions Judge on 31.12.84. As he retired as a member of the

Punjab Superior Judicial Service. He retired as a District

and Sessions Judge on 31.12.84. As he retired as a Services

(Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules,1958 applied tohim.

Accordingly his pension was fixed. On 22.02.90the State of

Punjab amendedRule 16 of the Punjab Superior Judicial

ServiceRules and made two changes. In respect of death-cum-

retirement benefits ofthe members of thatService the

Punjab Civil serv Rules were made applicable instead of the

all India Service Rules whichwere applicable till then.

anotherchangewas inrespectof direct recruits to the

Service. In their case,the actual period of practice at the

Bar not exceeding 10 years will have to be added now to his

servicequalifying for superannuation pension and other

retirement benefits. Rule 4.2of thePunjab Civil Service

Rules Volume II provides that"an officer appointedto a

service of post may add his service qualifying for

superannuation pension(but not for any other class of

pension) theactualpension ) the actual period not

exceeding one fourth or the length of his service of the

actual period by which his age at the recruitment one

exceedstwentyfive years or a period offive years,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2

whichever is least, if the service or post is one:-

(a) for which thepost graduate research or specialist

qualification, or experience inscientific. technological or

professional fields is essential, and

(b) .... .............."

The said Rule has been made applicable to those who are

recruited after 26.10.60. validity of that Rule was

challenged before the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt in Raj

Kumar Gupta vs. Stateof Haryana (C.W.P.No. 11756 of 1989)

and 17.9.91 the High court declared it as invalid being

violative of Article 14of the Constitution.

The appellant, therefore, made a representation

sometime thereafter for refixation of his pension by giving

him benefit ofRule 4.2. It was rejected by the State

Government on 9.7.92 on the ground that the respondent at

the time of his retirement was governed by the all India

Services (Death-cum-RetirementBenefits) Rules and not by

the Punjab Civil Service RulesVolume II and, therefore, he

was not entitled to claim the benefit of Rule 4.2. It was

also rejected on the ground that theamendment of 22.2.90

made in Rules 16 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service

Rules was onlyprospective and the benefit ofthe judgment

of the Punjab and Haryana High Court inS.S. Dewan vs. State

of Punjab cannot be given asthe said decision was under

challenge before this Court and operation of the order

passed in thatcase was stayed. The respondent, therefore,

filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

It wasallowed, following itsjudgment in Raj Kumar Gupta

vs. State of Haryana (supra) byholdingthat fixing 26.10.60

as thecut -off date wasarbitrary. The Statehas,

therefore, filed this appeal.

Asstatedearlierprior to 22.2.90 members of the

Punjab SuperiorJudicial Service, in respect oftheir death-

cum-retirement benefits were governed by the All India

Services (Death-cum-RetirementBenefits) Rules and not by

the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II. Though the

respondent claimed thebenefit of Rule 4.2 of the Punjab

Civil Service Rules Volume II it was really by virtue of the

amendment madein Rule 16 ofthe Punjab Superior Service

Rules which made thoseRules applicable from 22.2.90. As we

have held in State ofPunjabvs. S.S. Dewan (Civil Appeal

No. 506 of 1992) that the amendment made in Rule 16 applies

only to those who were/are in service and retired/retire

after it to be regarded as misconceived andwithout any

substance. Therefore, in view of the decision inS.S.

Dewan'scase (supra) this appeal is allowed.the judgment

and order passed by theHigh Court is set asideand thewrit

petition filedby therespondent stands dismissed. Inview

of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no

order as to costs.