- (1.) The sole claim of the petitioner who was employed as a teacher in M. B. High School, Kalka a school managed by a local body and later taken over (Provincialised) by the Government of the erstwhile State of Punjab with effect from 1st Oct. 1957 and has retired from that service in the year 1960 is that he is being wrongly denied the benefits to which he is entitled in terms of the policy decision of the present State Government as contained in letter dt .2nd Aug. 1973 (Annexure P-l).
(2.) The undisputed facts are that after provincialisation of petitioner's school he was transferred from Kalka to Mani- majra and on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1960 was retired from service. With the re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab in pursuance of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, with effect from 1st November, 1966. this township of Manimajra came to form a part of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The operative part of Annexure P-l on which the petitioner bases his entire claim reads as follows: "After careful consideration of the matter, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to order that employees of provincialised local body schools (including the non-teaching staff) who were above the age of 30 years on 1-10-1957 and who retired from service before 1-11-1966 from the areas falling in the present re-organised State of Punjab, may be given the pension with effect from 18-12-1972 (18th Dec. 1972) on the basis of their length of service, in accordance with the pension rules prevalent at the time of their retirement, subject to the condition that no death-cum-retirement gratuity would be paid to them and they will not be required to refund to the Government that share of Provident Fund received by them from the local bodies/ Government at the time of retirement." This decision makes it manifestly clear that only those teachers who retired prior to 1st Nov. 1966. from areas now forming part of the State of Punjab are entitled to the pensionary benefits and not others like the petitioner who retired from an area which is no more part of this State.
(3.) The primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the above noted policy decision of the State Government is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in so far as it discriminates or disentitles the petitioner in the matter of pensionary benefits in spite of the fact that he belongs to the same class of teachers of provincialised schools who retired prior to 1-11-1966 and have been granted pension in terms of this decision. I see merit in this submission of the learned counsel.;