SHARMA, J. - (1.) COMMON prayer of the petitioners in both these writ petitions is as under- (i) Regulations 3 (i), (k) and Note below Regulation 3 (i) of the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations 1989 (for short 1989 Regulations) be declared to be ultravires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same may be struck down as such. (ii) Petitioner Shafique Ahmed and 49 members of the petitioner Rajasthan Parivahan Nigam Karamchari and Adhikari Kalyan Samiti named in Schedule appended to this writ petition who have retired prior to April 1, 1989 and families of 27 employees who have retired before April 1, 1989 and have died thereafter should be given pensionary benefits from the date of retirement.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that the erstwhile Rajasthan State Roadways department of the Government of Rajasthan which was in existence upto Sept. 30, 1964 was converted into the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (in short RSRTC) with effect from October 1, 1964 under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation act, 1950 and the services of all the employees working in the erstwhile Rajasthan State Roadways department as on Sept. 30, 1964 were placed on deputation with the RSRTC with effect from October 1, 1964. The Government of Rajasthan issued to all individual employees of the erstwhile Rajasthan State Roadways department who were on deputation with the RSRTC that whether they intend to continue in Government service or whether they intend to opt for RSRTC service. The persons who were further asked whether they intend to opt for pensionary benefits of the Govt. of Rajasthan or whether they intend to opt for C. P. F. benefit as applicable to newly created RSRTC. In response to the option notice certain Government employees had opted to continue in the Government service whereas certain others had opted for RSRTC. Sufficient number of employees submitted representation against the terms and conditions mentioned in the option notice. Looking to the representation against the option notice, the Government of Rajasthan had issued another option notice on February 1, 1967 to all remaining individual employees for exercising their option. As a result of two option notice, certain Government employees opted to continue in Government and certain others had opted for RSRTC service. Those who opted to continue in Government Service were relieved from the RSRTC. Those who had opted for RSRTC services were declared RSRTC employees vide order dated June 30, 1966 with effect from July 1, 1966. The RSRTC employees were further divided into two categories as a result of their options for pensionary benefits or for C. P. F. benefits. Those who had opted for RSRTC service with pensionary benefits are being paid pension on their retirement by the State Government on the terms and conditions of the option notice. In all 470 employees opted for C. P. F. Out of them 373 employees are still working in the RSRTC and 49 employees have retired and 27 employees have died after retirement. Services of 9 employees were terminated while in service of RSRTC and 12 employees have resigned. The grievance raised in the writ petitions is that the State Government had failed to fulfill the conditions of agreement and avoided to transfer the amount of past services of the employees on the pretext or the other. The RSRTC invited fresh options from the employees who opted for C. P. F. vide memorandum dated June 27, 1984 but the options were never acted upon. Once fresh options were invited on June 27, 1984, the past options became nullity and pensionary benefits cannot be denied on the ground that the employees had already exercised options. As per 1989 Regulations the employees who had retired prior to April 1, 1989 were deprived of the pensionary benefits whereas the employees who were working on April 1, 1989 were given pensionary benefits. Egulations came into force w. e. f. April 1, 1989. According to these REgulations any person who was not covered under the definition of `employee', shall not be entitled to opt for pensionary benefits. Relevant statutory provisions read thus- " 3. (i) "employee' means any person who is in service of the Corporation but does not include daily labour, work charged employee and persons engaged on contract or retention cum fee, part time or any other basis as consultant advisor or counsels for legal, professional or any other purposes. " " k) "existing Employee" means an employee who is already in the regular time scale service of the Corporation on or before the commencement of the RSRTC pension and C. P. F. REgulations. " Note : Any person who is not covered under the definition of employee shall not be entitled to opt for pensionary and gratuity benefits as per Corporation Rules/rEgulations. "
(3.) MAIN contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that the classification sought on the basis of "date April 1, 1989" is discriminatory. This date cannot be decisive for the purpose of giving pensionary benefits. While issuing 1989 Regulations the `date April 1, 1989' has been arbitrarily picked up. No event took place on April 1, 1989. The 1989 Regulations exfacie militate against the right of equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on D. S. Nakara vs. U. O. I. (1) and Puroshottam Lal vs. RSRTC Per contra the submission of RSRTC is that as the petitioners have not challenged the cut off date of the enforcement of the Regulations w. e. f. April 1, 1989 they are not entitled to any relief. it is further contended that the said dated is absolutely justified and reasonable. P. F. retiree and pension retiree constitute. P. F. retiree and pension retiree constitute two different classes therefore there is no discrimination. The petitioners who opted for CPF cannot claim the benefit of the pension scheme which came into existence much after their retirement. Reliance is placed on Krishna Kumar vs. U. O. I. (3), All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association vs. U. O. I. (4), Commander Headquarter Calcutta vs. Captain Biplabendra Chanda (5) and State of Rajasthan vs. Prem Raj. I have pondered over the rival submissions. ;