- (1.) AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.(ORAL) 1 Exemption granted from filing certified copies of Annexures P - 7 and P -8 and the same are taken on record. CM stands disposed of. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the communication dated 22.10.2013 (Annexure P -5), vide which the representation of the petitioner for granting her the benefit of notification dated 17.04.2009 (Annexure P -1), vide which the petitioner claimed benefit of counting her 22 years, 8 months and 3 days qualifying service as requisite period of service which would entitle her to minimum of 50% of the emoluments under Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Service (Revised Pension) Part -II Rules, 2009 (for short "2009 Rules") and enhancing her pension accordingly with effect from the date of notification, i.e., 17.04.2009.It is the assertion of the petitioner that she has retired as a
(2.) LECTURER on 30.06.2007 after completion of 22 years, 8 months and 3 days of qualifying service from Government College for Women, Karnal. Claiming the benefit of 50% of the emoluments, as she fulfilled the qualifying service as per Rule 4 entitling her to the benefit of 50% of the last drawn emolument as pension was not being decided, the petitioner preferred CWP No.20130 of 2013 in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure P -4) directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner. In pursuance to the said directions issued by this Court, the Director, Higher Education, Haryana - respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 22.10.2013 (Annexure P - 5) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The reason assigned for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner has since retired prior to the date of notification, i.e., 17.04.2009 and she would not be entitled to the benefit as has been claimed by her. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the statutory rules, if not prior to 17.04.2009, but subsequent to the said date of notification. 3 This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.352 of 2012 (Gurtek Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others), decided on 11.01.2012 (Annexure P -8), where challenge to the vires of Rule 8 (3) of 2009 Rules has been rejected. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows: - "Undisputedly, the petitioners have retired from service on superannuation, in between 1.1.2006 to 16.4.2009 . It is also undisputed fact that none of the petitioners has completed 33 years of qualifying service, which would have made them entitled for full pension under the Pension Rules existing at the time of their retirement. With effect from 17.4.2009, the Revised Pension Rules of 2009 came into force. It is an admitted fact that all the petitioners retired from service before coming into force of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009. It is further admitted position that as per the Pension Rules, applicable prior to the Revised Pension Rules of 2009, a retiree was entitled for full pension on completion of 33 years of qualifying service. Under Rule 8.1 of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009, the linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service was modified to the extent that once a Government servant retires after rendering the minimum qualifying service of 28 years, pension shall be sanctioned at 50 per cent of the emoluments as defined in Rule 4 of the Rules subject to other conditions relating the same. However, under sub -rule (3), it was provided that the revised provisions for calculation of pension shall come into force with effect from the date of issue of the notification of the Rules and shall be applicable to Government servants retiring on or after that date. The Governments servants who have retired on or after 1st January, 2006 but before the date of issue of the notification of the Rules, will continue to be governed by the Rules which were in force immediately before these Rules came into effect as regards qualifying service. With regard to the grant of revised pay scales, the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revised Pay Rules of 2008') were implemented with effect from 1.1.2006, but as far as the provisions regarding calculation of revised pension of the employees who retired between 1.1.2006 to 17.4.2009 (the date of issuance of notification enforcing the Revised Pension Rules of 2009) are concerned, the Revised Pension Rules of 2009 will apply, but as regards the qualifying service, the old Rules were made applicable. Therefore, it has been found by the Director, Secondary Education, that the petitioners, who have though retired after 1.1.2006, but before 17.4.2009, are not entitled for full pension, as they have not completed 33 years of qualifying service. However, the amount of their pension shall be calculated as per the revised pay in Revised Pension Rules of 2009. Under Rule 8 (3) of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009, they cannot be given full pension on completion of 28 years of qualifying service. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Rule 8 (3) of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009 is arbitrary and ultra vires to the Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in this argument. Under Rule 8 (1), benefit of full pension has been given to the employees on completion of 28 years of qualifying service. Under sub -rule (3), this benefit has been made available to the employees who have retired after 17.4.2009, i.e. after coming into force of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009. Undisputedly, the petitioners have retired much earlier to the aforesaid date. However, they have been given the benefit of revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.2006, which has been given to all the employees under the Revised Pay Rules of 2008, whether they have retired on or after 1.1.2006, because the revision of pay was made effective with effect from 1.1.2006. Thus, the clarification made by these Rules is not arbitrary. Hence, we do not find any discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in Rule 8 (3) of the Revised Pension Rules of 2009. Dismissed."
(3.) IN the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the prayer as made by the petitioner cannot be accepted as it has categorically been held that the benefit will only incur to those employees who retire after the date of notification and those who have retired prior thereto cannot get the benefit of Rule 4 of 2009 Rules.;