Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusMANOHAR LAL MIRCHEA
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 435
- Decided
- 25 April 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
The amendment to Rule 16 is prospective and applies only to officers who retire after its commencement; therefore the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Rule 4.2.
Summary
Manohar Lal Mirchea retired as a District and Sessions Judge in 1984, when his death‑cum‑retirement benefits were governed by the All India Services (Death‑cum‑Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. In 1990 Punjab amended Rule 16 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, making the Punjab Civil Service Rules (specifically Rule 4.2) applicable to such benefits and allowing certain bar‑practice periods to be added to superannuation service. Mirchea sought a refixation of his pension under Rule 4.2, but the State rejected the claim, arguing that the amendment was prospective and could not apply to a retiree who left service before its commencement. The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed his writ petition, relying on a prior decision that the cut‑off date in Rule 4.2 was arbitrary. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the amendment to Rule 16 applies only to officers who were in service and retired after it came into force, rendering Mirchea’s claim untenable. Consequently, the High Court order was set aside and the writ petition dismissed. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the amendment to Rule 16 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, made on 22‑02‑1990, can be applied retrospectively to a member who retired before that date for the purpose of death‑cum‑retirement benefits.
- Whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, in respect of his superannuation pension.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Service lawSuperannuation pensionRetrospective amendmentDeath-cum-retirement benefitsRule 4.2Prospective applicationConstitutional lawArticle 14
Judgment
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. A
v.
MANOHAR LAL MIRCHEA
APRIL 25, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMI, G.T; NANAVATI AND B
K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]
Service Law :
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules 1963-Rule 16-Amendment C
made on 22.2.199o-Benefit of-Prior to amendment-Applicability of-Rule
applicable to the m'1Jlbers of Punjab Superior Judicial Services, providing
certain superannuation pe11sio11 benefit and post retirement benefits to direct
recruits retired prior to 22.2.199o-Held, the amendment made i11 Rule 16
applies only to those who were/are in service and retired/retire after it has
come into force-Hence the claim made by the respondent has to be regarded D
as misconceived and without any substance.
The Respondent joined Punjab Civil Service (Judicial) and was
subsequently promoted and became a member of the Punjab Superior
Judicial Service. He retired as a District and Sessions Judge on 31.12.1984.
As he retired as a member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service, for the
E
purpose of determining his death-cum-retirement benefits the All India
Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 applied to him. Ac·
cordingly his pension was fixed. On 22.2.1990, the State amended Rule 16
of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules and made two changes. In
respect of death-cum-retirement benefit of the members of that Service the F
Punjab Civil Service Rules were made applicable instead of the All India
Service Rules which were applicable till then. Another change was in
respect of direct recruits to the service. In their case the actual period at
the bar not exceeding 10 years will have to be added to his service
qualifying for superannuation pension and other retirement benefits.
G
Rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II provides that
an officer appointed to a service of post may add to his service qualifying
for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the
actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the
actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeds twenty H
1035
j
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.
A five years or a period of five years, whichever is least. The said Rule has
been made applicable to those who are recruited after 26.10.60. Validity of
that Rule was challenged before the High Court in Raj Kumar Gupta v.
State of Haryana, (C.W.P. No. 11756 of 1989) and on 17 .9.91 the High Court
declared it as invalid being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
B The Respondent made a representation sometime thereafter for
refixation of his pension by giving him benefit of Rule 4.2. It was rejected
by the State Government on the ground that the respondent at the time of
his retirement was governed by the All India Services (Death-cum-Retire-
ment Benefits) Rules and not by the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II
C and, therefore he was not entitled to claim the benefits of Rule. 4.2. It was
also rejected on the ground that the amendment of22.2.1990 made in Rule
16 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules was only prospective.
The Respondent therefore filed a Writ Petition in the High Court
and the same was allowed following its judgment in Raj Kumar Gupta v.
D State of Haryana by holding that the cut-off date was arbitrary. The Sate,
therefore filed the appeal before this Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Prior to 22.2.90 members of the Punjab Superior Judicial
E
Service, in respect of their death-cum- retirement benefits were governed
by the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules Volume
II. Though the Respondent claimed the benefit of Rule 4.2 of the Punjab
Civil Service Rules Volume II it was really by virtue of the amendment
made in Rule 16 of the Punjab Superior Service Rules which made those
F Rules applicable from 22.2.90. [1038-F-G]
2. The amendment made in Rule 16 applies only to those who
were/are in service and retired/retire after it has come into force. Therefore
claim made by the respondent has to be regarded as misconceived and
G without any substance. [1038-G-H]
State of Punjab v. S.S. Dewan, (Civil Appeal No. 506 of 1992) (P &
H), referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3095 of
H 1997.
STATE v. M.L. MIRCHEA[ NANAVATI,J.) 1037
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.93 of the Punjab & A
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 200 of 1993.
Manoj Swarup (NIP) for the Appellants.
K.C. Dua for the Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NANAVATI, J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appel-
lants. The respondent, though. served, has not appeared either in person
or through a lawyer. C
The respondent, who had, by 2.4.56, 7 years' standing at the Bar,
joined Punjab Civil Service (Judicial) on that date. He was subsequently
promoted and became a member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service.
He retired as a District and Sessions Judge on 31.12.84. As he retired as
a member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service, for the purpose of D
determining his death-cum-retirement benefits the All India Services
(Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 applied to him. Accordingly
his pension was fixed. On. 22.2.90 the State of Punjab amended Rule 16
of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules and made two changes. In
respect of death-cum-retirement benefits of the members of that Service E
the Punjab Civil Service Rules were made applicable instead of the All
India Service Rules which were applicable till then. Another change was
in respect of direct recruits to the Service. In their case, the actual period
of practice at the Bar not exceeding 10 years will have to be added now to
his service qualifying for superannuation pension and other retirement F
benefits. Rule 4.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II provides
that "an officer appointed to a service of post may add to his service
qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of
pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his
service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment
exceeds twenty five years or a period of five years, whichever is least, if the G
service or post is one :
(a) for which the post graduate research or specialist qualification,
or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential,
~ H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.
A (b) ......
The said Rule has been made applicable to those who are recruited
after 26.10.60. Validity of that Rule was challenged before the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Raj Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, (C.W.P. No.
B 11756 of 1989) and on 17.9.91 the High Court declared it as invalid being
violative of article 14 of the Constitution.
Respondent, therefore, made a representation sometime there-
after for refixation of his pension by giving him benefit of Rule 4.2. It
was rejected by the State Government on 9.7.92 on the ground that the
C respondent at the time of his retirement was governed by the All India
Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules and not by the Punjab
Civil Service Rules Volume II and, therefore, he was not entitled to
claim the benefit of Rule 4.2. It was also rejected on the ground that
the amendment of 22.2.90 made in Rule 16 of the Punjab Superior
D Judicial Service Rules was only prospective and the benefit of the
judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in S.S. Dewan v. State
of Punjab cannot be given as the said decision was under challenge
before this Court and operation of the order passed in that case was
stayed. The respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Punjab
E and Haryana High Court. It was allowed, following its judgmt:nt in Raj
Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana (supra) by holding that fixing 26.10.60
as the cut-off date was arbitrary. The State has, therefore, filed this
appeal.
As stated earlier prior to 22.2.90 members of the Punjab Superior
F Judicial Service, in respect of their death-cum-retirement benefits were
governed by the All India Services (Death-cum- Retirement Benefits)
Rules and not by the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II. Though the
respondent claimed the benefit of Ruic 4.2. of the Punjab Civil Service
Rules Volume II it was really by virtue of the amendment made in Rule
G 16 of the Punjab Superior Service Rules which made those Rules ap-
plicable from 22.2.90. As we have held in State of Punjab v. S.S. Dewan,
Civil Appeal No. 506 of (1992) that the amendment made in Rule 16
applies only to those who were/are in service and retired/retire after it
has come into force, claim made by the respondent has to be regarded
H as misconceived and without any substance. Therefore, in view of the
STATEv. M.L. MIRCHEA[ NANAVATI,J.) 1039
decision in S.S. Dewan's case (supra) this appeal is allowed. The judgment A
and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed
by the respondent stands dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances
of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
R.KS. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service law"Sign in to search