- (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against an order dated 7.1.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby, relying upon an earlier judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Prabha Devi fit Ors. v. Regional Institute of Technology fit Ors. reported in 2001 (3) JCR 281 (Jhr) : 2001 (2) JLJR 457, and agreeing with the contentions of the respondents that the grant of Triple Benefit Scheme (Payment of Pension. Gratuity and General Provident Fund) was to be applicable from 6.9.1999 and not from 1.4.1992, dismissed the writ application filed by the appellants.
(2.) THE appellants' main contention is that the Board of Regional Institute of Technology. Jamshedpur. had adopted a resolution whereby it decided to extend the benefit of the aforesaid Triple Benefit Scheme with effect from 1.4.1992 but the actual benefit was given from 6.9.1999 purportedly and apparently owing to the fact that it was only on this date that the Government of Bihar had passed a resolution to that effect. Undoubtedly, the resolutions adopted by the Board of Governors, RIT, Jamshedpur on 4.1.1992 and 22nd September, 1992, did say that the Triple Benefit Scheme would be applicable to the employees who would retire from the service of the Institution on or after 1.4.1992 but it also at the same time and in the same breath stipulated that this was subject to the approval by the participating Governments. Undoubtedly Bihar was one of the two participating Governments, the other one being the Central Government. Now if the extension of this benefit was made subject to the approval of the participating Governments, (such approval having come only on 6th September, 1999) and because of this fact, the stipulation with regard to the extension of this Benefit being applicable from 1.4.1992 stood washed out because undoubtedly the extension of the Benefit was itself made subject to such approval. In other words, the approval having been granted on 6th September, 1999 was to be made applicable prospectively i.e. from that date only, unless the resolution of the Govt granting approval itself stated that it was to take effect from 1.4.1992 or from any date earlier or prior to 6.9.1999.
(3.) VIEWED thus, the grievance of the appellants that the prospective approval of the extension of Tripple Benefit Scheme from 6.9.1999 was unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory does not seem to be well -founded. The contention of Mr.Gadodia learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that within a class, macro classification was unin -telligently carved out, is without any proper foundation because, what to speak of carving out or creating a macro classification within a class, the prospective applicability of the Benefit Scheme does not in any manner offend Article 14 of the Constitution because it does not create any classification as such. The people to whom the benefit of the Scheme was to be made applicable by themselves are a complete class and whether such benefit was to apply from 1.4.1992 or from any future date, does not amount to any discrimination or can't be termed as an arbitrary exercise of power.;