- (1.) This petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing communications dated 3.10.1996 (P-6) and 1.2.1999(P-12) whereby the claim made by the petitioner for accepting his prayer for pension under the Haryana Warehousing Employees Pension Regulations, 1996 (for brevity 'the Regulations') has been declined. The short question raised in this petition is whether the Regulations are to be effective from 27.6.1996 as provided by Regulation 2 or from the later date when these Regulations were published in the Official Gazette i.e. from 2.7.1996. The aforesaid question attains significance because the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.1996 and if the Regulations allowing the petitioner to switch over to pension are effective from 27.6.1996, then he could avail the benefit of pension under the Regulations otherwise if the Regulations are deemed to be effective from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette on 2.7.1996 then, the petitioner would loose the benefit of pension admissible under the Regulations. It is appropriate to mention that in the Corporation earlier to the promulgation of the Regulations there was Provident Fund Scheme which was regulated by Haryana Warehousing Corporation Employees Provident Fund Regulations, 1971. The petitioner was admittedly a member of the aforementioned fund and has availed this benefit under the fund.
(2.) In the written statement, the only stand taken is that the Regulations have been framed under Section 42 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. Accordingly, the Regulations under Section 42 of the Warehousing Corporation Act are deemed to be effective from the date of its notification in the Official Gazette.
(3.) Mr. Gunjan Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once there is an express intention manifest through Regulation 2 then reading of any other date for the enforcement of these Regulations by the respondent- corporation would not be warranted. According to the learned counsel, the Regulations are deemed to have come into force with immediate effect as is evident from the perusal of Regulation 2. Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for brevity 'the Act') also supports the aforementioned contention. According to him it provides that when an enactment does not expressed expressly provide any date of its promulgation then, it shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the assent of the President in respect of a Central Act. He has then referred to Sub-Section 3 of Section 5 of the General Clauses Act to contend that The Regulation must be construed to have come into operation immediately on the expiration of the date preceding its commencement unless contrary intention is expressed by the Regulations themselves. Learned counsel has maintained that the intention has been expressed by Regulation 2 by the Regulation framing authority.;