Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SITA RAM BANSAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Decided
27 November 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 249 · 1996 INSC 1395
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

These speci!d leave petitions have been filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the 1'11njab & Haryana High Court, made on May A 10, 1996 in C.W.P. No. 14764/94 and batch.

pp. 249–250, margin G

The petitioners are non-provincialised employees working in the notified municipal Committees. The Government in notification No. JA-I-

p. 250

DCFA-DLG-91/3958, dated January 25, 1991 have introduced the pension scheme applicable to All India Gazetted Officers and Punjab Civil Services Officers working in the municipalities with effect from April 1, 1990. Subsequently, the matter was considered and the benefit of the pension scheme was extended to the employees who are members of non-provincialised service of the Municipal Committees by notification dated July 28,

p. 250

1994. The question arose : whether those persons who retired before April 1, 1990 are also entitled to be brought within the pension scheme? Admit- ~dly, they are governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and on retirement, they had withdrawn the contributory Provident Fund in terms of the scheme that was in vogue earlier. The petitioners had filed the

p. 250, margin B

writ petitions in the High Court contending that prescription of a cut-off date. i.e. April 1, 1990, was arbitrary, and denying them the benefit of the pensionary scheme is .violative of Article 14 -of the Constitution. The High Court following its earlier decision rendered in Sham Das Sharma v. State of Punjab dismissed the writ petitions.

p. 250, margin C

Shri Dhingra, learned counsel for .the petitioners, contended that in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Shri Deoki Nandan Agarwal (1992] 1 SCC 323; Shri R.L. Marwah v. Union of India (1987] 3 SCR 928 and Shri M.C. Dhingra v. Union of India & Ors. JT (1996) 2 SC 463; the cut off date is arbitrary; the pensionary benefits should be ex-

p. 250, margin D

tended to the retirees prior to the cut of date; otherwise, it violates Article p 14 of the Constitution. We find no force in the contention. It is true that the pension is not a bounty but a right earned by the persons while in service. But, unfortunately, the pensionary scheme was not in vogue prior to the retirement of the petitioners .. The pension scheme came to be

p. 250, margin E

introduced for the first time with effect from April 1, 1990 and it was applied to persons serving the municipalities drawn from All India Service or the Provincial Service. Subsequently, that was extended to other . employees in the non-provincial service. The later G.O. also applied to those who retired between April 1, 1990 and July 28, 1994, the date on which the scheme was extended to the non-provincialised employees. In

p. 250, margin E

other words, all of them have been treated as a class and no invidious discrimination has been meted out to them. Thus, the date of April 1, 1990

p. 250, margin G

S.R. BANSAL v. STAIB 251 bears rationality, namely, the scheme for the first time was introduced on A that date. All those employees who retired prior to that date were treated as a class and those employees either in service or retiring on and after that date have been treated as a separate class and the scheme was extended to it. Thus, we fmd that there is no illegality in introducing the cut- off date; nor does it violate Article 14. The ratio in the above B judgments has no application to the facts in this case.

p. 251

The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed T.N.A. Petitions dismissed.

p. 251