Pattanaik, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment dated 13th of November, 1995 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 557 of 1987. Hari Ram Gupta, husband of the present appellant, had filed the writ petition seeking a mandamus from the Court to the appropriate authorities to give him the benefits of the Uttar Pradesh Palika (Centralised) Service Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). But said Hari Ram Gupta had retired from service on superannuation in the year 1980. He, however, claimed that he would be entitled to pension under the Rules as the Rules are intended to apply retrospectively and at any rate following the principle of the judgment of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 , the Court should grant him the relief. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to hold that the Rules have no retrospective operation, and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to claim pension under the Rules. Soon after the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the husband of the appellant having died, the widow filed the special leave application out of which this appeal arises. The sole question for consideration is whether the Rules can be said to have any retrospective application and are applicable to those employees belonging to the Palika (Centralised) Service, who retired from service prior to the coming into force of the Rules. It is not disputed that before the Rules came into operation there was no rules providing pension for the employees of the centralised services.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that a conjoint reading of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 3 would make it crystal clear that the Rule is applicable even to those employees who have retired from service on the date the Rules came into operation, provided they exercise their option in accordance with the Rules within the stipulated period of 90 days from the enforcement of the Rules and they deposit the amount finally withdrawn from Palika's contribution and bonus deposited in his Provident Fund Account into the pension fund established under Part VI of the Rules. According to the learned counsel unless such an interpretation is given, the provision of sub-rule (3) would become otiose inasmuch as an officer is entitled to finally withdraw the amount from the Provident Fund on superannuation and not while he continues to be in service. The learned counsel further contended that under identical circumstances an employee of a school under New Delhi Municipal Committee had approached this Court in the case of Shakuntala Mehrishi, New Delhi v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1990) 3 SCC 521 and this Court had granted the retiral benefits to the employee. The aforesaid decision, contens the learned counsel for the appellant, should apply with full force to the case in hand. The learned counsel further urged that the Rules in question providing for pension, if is held to apply to only those employees who retired subsequent to the coming into force of the Rules and not to those to (who) have already retired, then it would be violative of the law laid down by this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) inasmuch as pension paid is not a bounty nor an ex gratia payment for past services rendered and is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.;