Ram Kumar Shastri vs State of Haryana and others

A.K. Sikri, C.J.

C.M. No. 5077-LPA of 2012

There is a delay of 249 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the said application, delay is condoned.

Disposed of.

LPA No. 1939 of 2012

The appellant herein was teacher working with S.D. High School, Jind. Normal age of retirement as stipulated in the rules is 58 years. However, there is a provision for retention of those teachers beyond the age of 58 years and upto the age of 62 years, in case these teachers are ''National State Awardees''. The petitioner falls in that category and because of this reason, he was allowed to continue upto the age of 62 years i.e. upto 31.12.1998. However, while computing his pension, services rendered upto the age of 58 years only has been taken into consideration. The writ petition filed by the appellant is dismissed on the ground that service from the year 1994 to 1998 was re-employment and not retention. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon sub clause (f) of XXX111.19 of Haryana Education Code (GRANTS-IN-AID), which provides for such retention beyond 58 years. It, however, categorically states that a specific resolution is to be passed by the Managing Committee of the School for retention or re-employment of such a teacher beyond the age of 58 years.

The appellant has brought on record the resolution of the Managing Committee vide which the appellant was given extension in service beyond the age of 58 years and was not re-employed. However, the question as to whether he was re-employed or was given extension beyond the age of 58 years and upto the age of 62 years is inconsequential in as much as the pension is governed by Pension and C.P.F. Rules (Schools) 2001. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that the case of the appellant is covered by these Rules. Rule 8 of these Rules provides for the superannuation pension and reads as under:-

8(1) Superannuation pension:-

An employee other than Group ''D'' employee under these rules, will be entitled to the superannuation pension from the date he attains the age of fifty eight years.

Note-Service of National/State awardees of aided schools for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits shall be counted upto the age of fifty eight years irrespective of extension in service beyond the age of superannuation;

(2) A Group ''D'' employee shall be entitled to the superannuation pension from the date he attains the age of sixty years.

(3) Pension shall be calculated at the rate of fifty per cent of the average pay of the last ten months. The admissibility of full-pension shall be on completion of thirty three years qualifying service. The amount of pension is to be determined by length of service. The length of qualifying service for this purpose shall be calculated in terms of completed six monthly period and fraction of a year equal to three months or more shall be treated as a completed six monthly period.

As per the aforesaid Rule, an employee is entitled to superannuation pension from the date he attains the age of 58 years. Note clarifies that the calculation of pensionary benefits is to be counted upto the age of 58 years irrespective of the extension in service beyond the age of superannuation.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this note was inserted by amendment in these Rules vide notification dated 15.12.2005 and, therefore, it would not be applicable in the case of the appellant who had retired earlier thereto. This was the contention raised before the learned Single Judge as well and rightly turned down stating that the note was only clarificatory in nature and it is not a provision introduced for the first time in the year 2005. This becomes abundantly clear from the language of sub rule 1 of Rule 8, which was always there from the beginning and which clearly states that the employee will be entitled to superannuation pension from the date he attains the age of 58 years. When the Rule is specific i.e. the pension is to be calculated upto the age of 58 years, which is the normal date of superannuation, whether an employee gets extension or is re-employed after 58 years would be no consequence. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.