Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Darshan Singh vs The State Of Punjab Secretary … on 22 January, 2021
Author: Hon’Ble The Justice
Bench: Hon’Ble The Justice, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.A. No.2673 of 2019 In Civil Appeal No.1298 of 2018 Darshan Singh & Ors. .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab & Ors. …. Respondent (s)
O R D E R
1. A pension scheme was proposed by the Government of
Punjab in lieu of Contributary Provident Fund in the year 1991
which was ultimately introduced in 1999. The cut off date
fixed for implementation of the pension scheme is 01.07.1999.
The request made for altering the cut off date was not
accepted by the Government on the ground that there would
be huge financial burden on the State exchequer. The Writ
Petition filed for implementation of the pension scheme from
1995 was dismissed by the High Court. Civil Appeal No.1298
of 2018 was filed challenging the legality and validity of the
judgment of the High Court.
2. This Court directed the learned counsel for the State of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Punjab to obtain instructions about the actual financial liability
of the State as the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants
1 | Page
submitted that only 100 eligible employees are surviving. After
obtaining instructions, Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned counsel for
the State submitted that there are 214 persons who are
eligible for the pension/family pension and the annual liability
of the State would be Rs.3.79 Crores. While recording the
submissions of Ms. Uttara Babbar that the persons who retired
between 1995 and 1999 would be eligible for the benefit of
the scheme is 214, a direction was given by this Court to pay
pension in accordance with the scheme to 214 persons w.e.f.
01.01.2018. It was made clear in the judgment dated
30.01.2018 that the Appellants would not be entitled for
arrears prior to 01.01.2018.
3. M.A. No.2673 of 2019 is filed for a clarification of the
judgment dated 30.01.2018 as the Appellants were not
granted pension though their names are found in the list of
214. It has been stated in the M.A. that Applicant No.1 retired
on 30.04.1994 and the Applicant No.2 retired on 20.09.1997.
The reasons given by the Government for not granting the
benefit of the scheme is that Appellant No.1 retired prior to
11.05.1995. The persons who are included in the list of 214
names given by the Government cannot be deprived of the
benefit of the scheme on any ground whatsoever. We see no
merit in the contention of Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned counsel
for the State that only those persons who retired from service
2 | Page
between 11.05.1995 and 30.06.1999 shall be eligible for the
benefit of the pension scheme. The Civil Appeal was allowed
on the statement made by Ms. Uttara Babbar on instructions
obtained from the State Government that 214 persons are
eligible for the benefit of the pension scheme.
4. M.A. No.2673 of 2019 is disposed of by clarifying the
judgment dated 30.01.2018 in Civil Appeal No.1298 of 2018
that all the 214 persons who are included in the list prepared
by the State Government are entitled for grant of benefit in
accordance with the pension scheme.
5. M.A. No.2673 of 2019 in Civil Appeal No.1298 of 2018 is
disposed of accordingly.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
January 22, 2021.
3 | Page