HC admonishes state for ‘arbitrary’ order on old pension scheme

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished the State of Punjab and imposed Rs 1 lakh costs for passing an arbitrary and illegal order denying the employees the benefit of the old pension scheme, even though they were appointed prior to January 1, 2004.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi held that the respondents’ actions were not supported by any legal rule or provision, prompting the court to not only grant relief to the petitioner-employees, but also impose the cost to be personally borne by the Director, Public Instructions (SE).

Justice Sethi asserted the question for determination was whether appointment made prior to January 1, 2004, could be dealt with under the new contributory pension scheme, which came into existence only from that date.

Justice Sethi asserted it was conceded position that the old pension scheme was in force on the date of the petitioners’ appointment. Elaborating, the court asserted they were appointed on December 26, 2003, and granted 90 days to join their positions, but they did so within 10 days. Still the respondents sought to apply the new pension scheme solely based on the petitioners’ date of joining, January 8, 2004.

“Once the petitioners joined in pursuance to the appointment order dated December 26, 2003, action of the respondents in making new pension scheme applicable upon them only on the ground that the petitioners joined on January 8, 2004, is totally arbitrary and illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law,” Justice Sethi asserted.

The court asserted the state counsel was unable to demonstrate any provisions in the new contributory pension scheme that could support its application to appointments made prior to January 1, 2004.

Justice Sethi also referred to precedents where the high court ruled that recruits selected before January 1, 2004, and appointed thereafter were still entitled to the old pension scheme. The Bench added that the Supreme Court had, in one of the matters, upheld the decision

Referring to the unnecessary litigation resulting from the respondents’ refusal to acknowledge the petitioners’ entitlement under the old pension scheme, Justice Sethi added: “This shows the attitude of the respondents as despite having a clear-cut case... the petitioners have been made to litigate before this court.”

The Bench added the costs would be deposited by the Director from own pocket and not reimbursed under any circumstances. “If an authority passes any order which is not supported by any law or rules or regulations, the said authority is liable to compensate the petitioners and the state funds cannot be used to support arbitrary order of an authority,” the court concluded.