- (1.) The petitioners, who are retired employees of the Haryana Khadi and Village Industries Board, have a grievance that the pension scheme, which was notified in the year 1995 allowed for application of the scheme only to persons, who were retired on or after 08.02.1995 and the petitioners having been retired prior to that date but after 01.06.1992, have been denied the benefit of the pension scheme. The basis of the petitioners' grievance is that the issue of grant of pension to employees of Khadi Board had been under active consideration from the year 1984 itself and the Board had passed a resolution in the year 1990 and sent it to the Government for notification in the manner required under Section 35 of the Regulations. However, though the pension scheme was approved originally as a matter of policy by the Government to be effective from 01.06.1992 it was not given effect to by proper notification at that time till after a later notification issued on 08.02.1995. The Board had itself made a recommendation to the Director of Industries for introduction of the pension scheme from 01.06.1992 as originally contemplated but this was rejected by the impugned order on 01.12.1998 by a cryptic observation that it was "considered and declined". The petitioners' grievance is that after the proposals were sent by the Board and after the Government had accepted the proposals for introduction of the pension scheme from the year 1992, they had a legitimate expectation that the scheme would be extended to them but in spite of a decision taken by the Board that the pension scheme could involve no financial implication to the State, still the Government has not approved the decision of the Board for no valid reasons. Since the decision of the Government was cryptic, this Court has on an earlier occasion called upon the State to give reasons as to why the decision was taken in the manner that it did and this is sought to be explained through an additional affidavit filed by Sh. H.R. Gandhi, Under Secretary to Government Haryana, Industries Department. It has been brought through the additional affidavit that employees, who were retired in the intervening period from 01.06.1992 to 08.02.1995 had already been paid the CPF amount and the Government did not find any logic to allow pensionary benefits to such employees.
(2.) In my view, the explanation through the additional affidavit does not really answer the situation of why they were declining a recommendation from the Board. The Board itself had at one time through Annexure P-4 dated 14.11.1990 informed that there would be no additional burden of expenditures on the Government as they could be met out of the matching contributions given by the State Government towards Contributory Provident Fund, if the pension was introduced. It must, however, be seen that in a subsequent communication in the year 1998, the Board was making a reference to an additional burden of Rs. 1,55,000/- on Government upto 30.06.1997, if the pension was given to the retired employees from 01.06.1992. It is possible that the liability would be more than double now, if the pension scheme were to be introduced from 01.06.1992.
(3.) At least, one aspect can be noticed that when the Government was declining the Board's recommendation, it was not on account of any financial stringency that was brought to bear upon its decisions. On the other hand, the consideration was that the retired employees of the year 1992 had taken the benefit of the CPF and there was no logic for extending pension. Similar issues arising from the Municipal Committees have been considered by this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court while directing the introduction of the pension scheme for persons, who had retired after receiving CPF amounts. The balance has been stuck by directing the retired employees to refund the amounts recovered with interest. The counsel for the petitioners states that all the retired employees would be prepared to refund the CPF amounts received by them with interest @ 12% per annum. The fact that CPF amounts have been paid by itself could not have been a ground for declining the recommendation of the Board.;