- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay him the pension and gratuity along with arrears. A further prayer has been made that interest @ 15% on the arrears of pension and gratuity be also paid.
(2.) The petitioner who is now represented by his Legal Heirs was working as a driver in the Haryana Roadways since 12.1.1961 and he retired as such on 1.3.1977 in the pay scale of Rs. 130-205. At the time of his retirement, he was drawing basic salary of Rs. 160/- per month. It is claimed that at the time of retirement he was not paid any pension although in 1982 the respondent-State had taken a decision to grant pension to all the employees of the Transport Department including the operational staff viz. Work Charged Staff, Drivers and Conductors etc. It is claimed that persons similarly situated to the petitioner had approached this Court and they were granted pension. In that regard primary reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Harbans Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others,1986 2 SLJ 290. A perusal of the aforementioned judgment shows that all the employees of the State Transport Service, who had not been confirmed against pensionable posts on 1.11.1955 were to be entitled to the concession of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme under the erstwhile State of Punjab and the rules known as the Punjab Contributory Fund Rules, contained in Chapter XIV of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. According to Rule 3.17(A)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I read with Note-I under Rule 14.4(1), it is provided that a person contributing to the Contributory Provident Fund should not be entitled to pension. The State Transport later came to be known as The Punjab Roadways and on reorganisation of the State of Punjab, w.e.f. 1.11.1966, the State Transport, Punjab continued to be known as the Punjab Roadways while in the respondent State of Haryana, it came to be known as 'The Haryana Roadways'. A scheme of pension was framed w.e.f. 1.7.1982 and those employees who had retired before 1.7.1982 were not to be entitled to the Scheme. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Harbans Lal's case held the fixation of date of 1.7.1982 as arbitrary and quashed the provision of the Scheme to that extent. It was directed by this Court in Harbans Lal's case that monthly pension was to be worked out and payable to each petitioner.
(3.) The aforementioned factual position has not been disputed before me and it is conceded that the petitioner has retired from service on 1.3.1977 as driver. It is also admitted that the petitioner was member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (for brevity, 'the CPF Scheme'), which was floated by the department wherein matching contribution used to be made by the respondent department. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioner was paid the amount of CPF on his retirement in 1977.;