Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 2. Peoners are rered employees of Punjab Polluon Control Board (PPCB - Board). They had rered prior to 01.01.1996. By way of these peons, they pray for issuance of appropriate writ : to quash the le'er memo dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure P-14) and memo dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P-15) vide which respondent No.1- State has declined to grant the pensionary beneﬁts to the rered employees of PPCB, i.e. peoners. to quash part of noﬁcaon dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure P-7A) to the extent that same has been enforced prospecvely, instead of being enforced from 01.01.1996. [relief added by way of amendment in the peon] to direct the respondents to grant beneﬁts of pension to the peoners under Pension Scheme implemented w.e.f. 26.12.2006 in terms of promise made by PPCB vide its le'er dated 25.07.1997 (Annexure P4). 3.1 According to the peoners, employees of the Board being covered by the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereina er referred as ‘the Act 1952’), were subscribing a part of their salary towards Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Act 1952. An equal amount being the employers share was paid by the Board and both these amounts were deposited with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. 3.2 The Board in its meeng dated 07.02.1995 considered the item relang to implementaon of pension scheme for the employees of the Board and agreed in principle to grant pension to its employees. Vide le'er dated 27.03.1995 (Annexure P-2), the Board sent the copies of the proposed dra8 pension scheme to the Government in the Department of Science Technology and Environment, Punjab, Chandigarh, conveying the decision of the Board and desired that before obtaining the sancon of the Government Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 and implementaon of the scheme, it may be examined by the Administrave Department, Bureau of Public Enterprise, Finance Department and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. 3.3 Under the Act 1952, the Government of India introduced Employees’ Pension Scheme for all subscribers of EPF w.e.f. 16.11.1995. The scheme was made admissible to the employees, who were subscribing towards the EPF. However, para 39 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 provided that Government of India could exempt the noﬁed pension scheme for such employees, who may opt for a pension scheme, wherein pensionary beneﬁts were at par or more favourable to the employees. 3.4 In view of the above said Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, which came into existence on 16.11.1995 under the provisions of the EPF Act, 1952, the Board vide its le'er dated 08.02.1996 (Annexure P-3), approached the Government of India as well as Government of Punjab requesng for necessary exempon under para 39 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, as pensionary beneﬁts under the Board’s own proposed scheme were more beneﬁcial than the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The said request was repeated vide another le'er dated 22.08.1997 (Annexure P-5). 3.5 A meeng was held on 11.11.1999 under the Chairmanship of the Special Secretary, Department of Science Technology and Environment, Punjab, Chandigarh with the Board Authories, wherein it was decided vide (Annexure P-6) to recommend the proposed scheme of the Board to the Government of Punjab for its implementaon and grant of its permission for implementaon of the scheme. Dra8 rules were also proposed to be sent to the Government for its concurrence a8er approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 3.6 Therea8er, the Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Science Technology and Environment, vide le'er dated 20.01.2000 (Annexure P-7) directed the Board to send dra8 regulaon relang to the Pension Scheme for the employees of the Board in terms of Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 sub Secon 3A of Secon 12 of the Water (Prevenon and Control of Polluon) Act, 1974 for obtaining the approval of the Government of Punjab. In compliance of the said direcon, dra8 regulaons were placed in 107th meeng of the Board held on 07.07.2000 and the Board approved the Pension Scheme under the name and style as “Punjab Polluon Control Board Pension Regulaons”. The said regulaons were recommended vide le'er dated 29.08.2000 (Annexure P-17) to be eﬀecve from 01.01.1996, i.e. the date on which recommendaons of 4th Punjab Pay Commission were implemented. 3.7 However, the Government approved and noﬁed the above-said Scheme vide Noﬁcaon dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure P-7A) as “Punjab Polluon Control Board Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulaons” under Sub Secon 3A of Secon 12 of the Water (Prevenon and Control of Polluon) Act, 1974 as recommended by the Board, but made the said Scheme eﬀecve from 26.12.2006. 4.1 It is contended by the peoners that by changing the date of implementaon of the Scheme from 01.01.1996 to be eﬀecve from 26.12.2006, great hardship and discriminaon has been caused to the employees, who had rered from the services of the Board during the period of 01.01.1996 to 26.12.2006. This acon of the Government in changing the date of implementaon of the Scheme is against the speciﬁc recommendaons of the respondent-Board sent vide le'er dated 29.08.2000 and again on 22.09.2006, whereby the Pension Scheme was recommended to be made eﬀecve from 01.01.1996. 4.2 The ma'er was taken by the Board with the Government vide its le'er dated 03.07.2008 (Annexure P-8) to safeguard the interest of the aﬀected employees by requesng for retrospecve approval of the Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to cover the employees, who had rered prior to 26.12.2006 under its Pension Scheme so as to save them from the ﬁnancial hardship and discriminaon. It was pointed out that only seven employees had rered between 1.1.1996 & 26.12.2006. The ma'er was again taken up Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 by the Board with the Government by reiterang its stand vide le'er dated 14.01.2010 (Annexure P-9). Aﬀected employees even submi'ed aﬃdavit (Annexure P-11) to the eﬀect that they will not demand any arrears up to date of noﬁcaon or pension commutaon and that they are willing to deposit employers share with interest. Said aﬃdavits were sent vide le'er dated 9.12.2010 (Annexure P-10) by the board to the government. 4.3 In a meeng held on 14.01.2011 between the oﬃcers of the Board and that of the Government, it was decided to discuss the ﬁnancial posion of the Board a8er taking into consideraon the proposed pensionary liability of the employees. The Board vide its le'er dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure P-12) clariﬁed to the Government regarding the ﬁnancial posion up to 2025-26 to be sasfactory and even therea8er also. 4.4 Peoners made various oral and wri'en representaons to the respondent-Board as well to the Government for payment of pension and to make the Pension Scheme applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is contended that in the proposal sent to the Government, it was clearly spulated that ﬁnancial liability of this account shall be met by the Board from its own sources without there being any burden on the Government. However, the representaon made by peoner No.1 on 05.09.2011 was declined by the respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 30.11.2012 (Annexure P-15), on the basis of an earlier le'er dated 05.09.2011, because in the le'er dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure P-14), while replying to the Government memo dated 04.08.2011, the Board had conveyed its inability to bear the liability due to funds constrains, which was totally in contradicon to the earlier le'er dated 25.01.2011 in respect of the fund posion of the Board and its readiness to bear the liability speciﬁcally ll 2025-26. 4.5 Peoners have further referred to Secon 37 and 38 of the Water (Prevenon and Control of Polluon) Act, 1974 in order to contend that State Board has its own funds and it may spend as much amount as it thinks ﬁt for performing its funcons. It is also contended that Punjab Polluon Control Board is ﬂushed with funds and as such the acon of the Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 respondents in declining implementaon of the Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.1996, in contradicon to the earlier stand, is null and void. 5.1 Respondent No.1 in its reply submi'ed that Punjab Polluon Control Board was constuted by the State Government in July, 1975 vide Noﬁcaon dated 30.07.1975 as a result of adopon of Water (Prevenon and Control of Polluon) Act, 1974. The Act 1952 was made applicable to the employees of the Board from October, 1978, but the pension has been disconnued w.e.f. 01.01.2004 in view of the Circular dated 02.03.2004. As the employees of the Board have been represenng since long to start its own Pension Scheme, the ma'er was referred to the State Government for approval of the dra8 scheme sent by the Board and that the Government of Punjab, Department of Science Technology and Environment, vide its Noﬁcaon dated 26.12.2006 has approved the regulaon for grant of pension to the employees of the Board eﬀecve from 26.12.2006, i.e. date of Noﬁcaon. 5.2 Respondent No.1 submi'ed further that it has been clearly menoned in Regulaon No.3, Chapter II of the Noﬁcaon that these regulaons shall apply to the employees of the Board, who were/are appointed on or before 31.12.2003 on regular basis and were working immediately before the date of issuance of the regulaon and opted for these regulaons. 5.3 The request of the employees, who had rered prior to 26.12.2006 was duly considered and examined by the Board from me to me and the ma'er was taken up with the Government for covering these employees in the Pension Scheme. In this regard, the Government of Punjab, vide memos issued from me to me raised queries, which were replied by the Board. Finally, the Government of Punjab, Department of Science, Technology, Environment & Non-convenonal Energy vide its memo dated 8.8.2012 (Annexure R-1/1) sought queries from the Board as to whether the Board was ready to bear ﬁnancial liability on account of payment of pension to the employees rered prior to 26.12.2006. The Board in its reply dated Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 24.08.2012 (Annexure R-1/2) to the Government of Punjab inmated that Board cannot bear the ﬁnancial liability of the employees, who had rered from services of Board from 01.01.1996 to 25.12.2006, which was calculated to be ₹1.25 crores, as had been earlier conveyed to the Government vide le'er dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure R-1/3). Keeping in view the ﬁnancial liability as well as totality of the ma'er, the Government of Punjab vide its le'er dated 30.11.2012 rejected the representaon of the employees for extending the beneﬁts of the Pension Scheme. 5.4 It is further the stand of respondent No.1 that as per se'led legal proposion, all the rules, regulaons, noﬁcaons etc. are implemented prospecvely and not with retrospecve eﬀect. Since the peoners had rered from services of the Board earlier and the Pension Regulaons were noﬁed on 26.12.2006, so the Pension Regulaons cannot be implemented with retrospecve eﬀect from the date of rerement of peoner No.1. Representaons made by the peoners to implement the regulaons with retrospecve eﬀect have already been rejected. 6. In the separate reply ﬁled by respondent No.2-Board, it has taken almost the same stand as taken by respondent No.1. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the peoners that once the Board had recommended the implementaon of the Pension Scheme to be eﬀecve w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and had had also informed the govt. that its ﬁnancial condion was good, it was not just for the Government to implement the scheme w.e.f. 26.12.2006. It is argued that by making the Pension Scheme applicable from 26.12.2006, the Government has discriminated with the employees, who had rered prior to this date. It is argued that all the rered employees, whether rered prior to date of noﬁcaon or therea8er, form a homogeneous class and so, there is no jusﬁcaon for ﬁxing the cut-oﬀ date as 26.12.2006 for implementaon of the Pension Scheme. It is further contended that the Government has not provided any valid reasons for ﬁxing the cut-oﬀ date to be 26.12.2006 and as Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 such, the decision of the Government in implemenng the scheme w.e.f. 26.12.2006 is not sustainable. 8. Refung the aforesaid contenons, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no discriminaon in ﬁxing a parcular cut-oﬀ date for making the scheme applicable for only those employees of the board, who were appointed on or before 31st December, 2003 and were working before 26.12.2006 i.e., date of publicaon of the pension regulaons. It is submi'ed that the employees, who had rered prior to this cut-oﬀ date, were availing the beneﬁt of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and so, it constutes a separate class. A8er availing the beneﬁt of said Contributory Fund Scheme on the rerement, it is not open to the peoners to contend that the Pension Scheme as noﬁed for the employees appointed on regular basis up to 31.12.2003 and who were working immediately before the date of issuance of the regulaons, is discriminatory. Employees, who no longer were in service immediately before the implementaon of the regulaons, cannot be treated as a homogeneous class. It is also contended that it is always open for the employer to extend the further beneﬁts to the employees prospecvely. It is the policy ma'er, in which the High Court cannot intervene in its writ jurisdicon. 9. Learned State counsel has relied upon “State of Punjab and others v. Amar Nath Goyal and others”, Law Finder Doc Id # 84235; “Himachal Road Transport Corpora#on and another v. Himachal Road Transport Corpora#on Re#red Employees Union”, Civil Appeal No.7230 of 2012, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.02.2021; and “PUDA Employees Welfare Society (Regd.) v. State of Punjab and others” Law Finder Doc Id # 2657177. 10. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully. 11. It is not disputed and rather, it is the own case of the peoners that employees of the Board were covered by the provisions of the Act 1952 Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 and they were subscribing a part of their salary towards Employees’ Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. An equal amount being employor’s share was also being paid by the Board and both these amounts were being deposited with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab for creding the same in Employees’ Provident Fund Account and the Family Pension Scheme, which are maintained by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. 12. It is no doubt true that the Board as per its resoluon, had recommended to the Government to implement the Pension Regulaons to be eﬀecve from 01.01.1996, but a8er nocing the ﬁnancial liability and a8er seeking necessary queries from the Board in this regard, the Government has made the said regulaons eﬀecve from 26.12.2006. 13.1 A similar queson, i.e. implementaon of the Pension Scheme from a parcular date, was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Himachal Road Transport Corpora#on’s case (supra). In that case, the employees of the Himachal Road Transport Corporaon were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The Corporaon introduced a Pension Scheme in the year 1995 by issuing Noﬁcaon dated 06.10.1995 and adopted Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972. Pension Scheme was given eﬀect to from 05.06.1995, i.e. from the date the Scheme was approved by the Cabinet/Government. Union of Rered Employees of the Corporaon consisted of the employees, who had rered prior to 05.06.1995. They approached Administrave Tribunal to challenge the cut-oﬀ date for grant of pension to only those employees, who were in service of the Corporaon as on 05.06.1995. They claimed that they were entled for the pension as the others similarly situated employees between 05.06.1995 to 06.10.1995 and that acon of the Corporaon in denying pension to the peoners be declared null, illegal and void. They pleaded the ﬁxaon of the cut-oﬀ date to be arbitrary and discriminatory. Page 9 of 19 Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 13.2 The Corporaon resisted the peon but the Administrave Tribunal dismissed the peon of the Employees Union, who then approached Himachal Pradesh High Court. The High Court allowed the writ peon by quashing the cut-oﬀ date on the ground that no reasons were forth coming from the Corporaon for picking up the cut-oﬀ date, i.e. 05.06.1995 for implementaon of the Scheme. The High Court declared the Scheme noﬁed on 06.10.1995 to be made applicable to the Members of the Employees Union and other similarly situated persons with the condion that they will have to deposit the amount received by them under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme within a reasonable me. The said judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court was assailed by the Corporaon before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13.3 Hon’ble Supreme Court a8er nocing that all the rered employees of the Union were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, held as under:- “15. In the case of D.S. Nakara, (1983) 1 SCC 305, this Court had treated the pension rerees only, as a homogeneous class and all the pensioners governed by The 1972 Rules, were treated as a class, because payment of pension was a connuing obligaon on the part of the State, ll lifelong to the pensioners, unlike the beneﬁciaries of the Contributory Provident Fund. In the said case, it was never held that the pension rerees and the employees in service, constute a homogeneous class. In the case of R.L Marwaha v. Union of India and others, 1987 (4) SCC 31 , this Court has held that ﬁxing of a date for grant of beneﬁt, must have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. There cannot be any dispute on the proposion. Further, the case of Union of India and another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 323 relates to ﬁxaon of cut-oﬀ date, for grant of liberalized Pension Scheme. Even in the case of Subrata Sen and others v. Union of India and others (2001) 8 SCC 71, where a cut-oﬀ date was ﬁxed for the purpose of applicability of revised pension scheme, this Court has held that all rered employees constute one homogeneous class and there cannot be cut-oﬀ date ﬁxed to extend such beneﬁts. All the above said cases Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 which are referred to and relied on by the High Court are not relevant and cannot be pressed into service, to decide the issue which arises on the facts of this case. 16. Though there are long line of cases, where validity of ﬁxaon of cut- oﬀ date is considered by this Court, we conﬁne and refer to the case law which is relevant to the facts of the case on hand. In the case of State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754, while examining the validity of cut-oﬀ date ﬁxed for grant of beneﬁt of increased quantum of death-cum- rerement gratuity, this Court has held that the ﬁnancial constraint pleaded by the Government, was a valid ground for ﬁxaon of cut-oﬀ date and such ﬁxaon was not arbitrary, irraonal or violave of Arcle 14 of the Constuon. While diﬀerenang the facts with the case of D.S. Nakara, this Court held in para 29 of the judgment, which reads as under: - “29. D.S. Nakara which is the mainstay of the case of the employees arose under special circumstances, quite diﬀerent from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary beneﬁts and classiﬁcaon of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-oﬀ line and granng the revised pensionary beneﬁts to employees rering on or a8er the cut-oﬀ date. The criterion made applicable was “being in service and rering subsequent to the speciﬁed date”. This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised Pension Scheme, applicaon of such a criterion is violave of Arcle 14 of the Constuon, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who rered prior to a speciﬁed date, and those who rered therea8er formed one class of pensioners. The a'empt to classify them into separate classes/groups for the purpose of pensionary beneﬁts was not founded on any intelligible dirrerena, which had a raonal nexus with the object sought to be achieved. However, it must be noted that even in cases of pension, subsequent judgments of this Court have considerably watered down the rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara as we shall see later in T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy (“Veerasamy”). In any event, this is not a case of a connuing beneﬁt like pension; it is a one-me beneﬁt like gratuity.” 17. In the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & others v. N. Subbarayudu & others (2008) 14 SCC 702, by nocing that a rigid view was taken in the case Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 of D.S. Nakara, this Court has considerably watered down the same and has held that ﬁxing the cut-oﬀ date is an execuve funcon based on several factors like economic condions, ﬁnancial constraints, administrave and other circumstances. This Court further held that even if no reason is forthcoming from execuve, for ﬁxaon of a parcular date, it should not be interfered by Court, unless cut-oﬀ date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result. 18. In the case of Suchet Singh Yadav and others v. Union of India and others (2019) 11 SCC 520, of which one of us is a party, (Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.), while examining the claim of commissioned oﬃcers of defence forces, i.e., Army, Air force and Navy, who rered prior to 01.01.1996, for grant of next higher pay scale, on the strength of Order of Government of India dated 21.11.1997, which was issued in consequence of implementaon of Fi8h Pay Commission Report, this Court has not accepted the plea of discriminaon. In the said judgment, it is held that pensioners, for purposes of pension, constute one class and schemes which classify pensioners on basis of cut-oﬀ date are impermissible unless such classiﬁcaon is founded on some raonal principle. On the facts of the case, in the aforesaid judgment, it is held that the Order which was issued by the Government of India on 21.11.1997, is applicable only to exisng oﬃcers and not rerees. Further in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Associa#on by its Secretary v. The State of Manipur and others, (2019) 9 Scale 282, of which, one of us is a party, (Hon’ble M.R.Shah, J.), when validity of Oﬃce Memorandum dated 21.04.1999, issued for revising the quantum of pension by ﬁxing the cut-oﬀ date on 01.01.1996 is quesoned, this Court has held that all pensioners form only one homogeneous class and held that such a ﬁxaon of date for extending the beneﬁts of revised beneﬁts to the pensioners, is arbitrary and violates Arcle 14 of the Constuon. 19. Coming back to the facts of the case on hand, by applying the case law which is referred above, it is clear that all the members of the respondent-Union, while in service, were governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. All those employees who rered before 05.06.1995, were paid all reral beneﬁts, applicable to them. As the Pension Scheme was not in existence during the relevant me, it was not the case of Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 violaon of any service condions either. The Pension Scheme is introduced by way of noﬁcaon dated 06.10.1995, by giving eﬀect from 05.06.1995, on which date the Cabinet has approved the Scheme. The employees who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and rered prior to 05.06.1995 and the employees who were in service and connued a8er 05.06.1995, of the appellant- Corporaon, cannot be treated as a homogeneous class. The rered employees, who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, on their rerement had already received the beneﬁts of such Scheme, constute diﬀerent class than those employees who were in service as on 05.06.1995. There is a valid reason for giving eﬀect to the Pension Scheme from 05.06.1995, though the noﬁcaon was issued on 06.10.1995. The cut-oﬀ date, i.e., 05.06.1995 is ﬁxed on the ground that the Cabinet has approved the Scheme from such date. As already noced above, it is always open for the employer to introduce new Schemes and beneﬁts, having regard to ﬁnancial health of the employer. Whenever such new beneﬁt is extended for the exisng employees, rered employees cannot seek such beneﬁt, merely on the ground that they too were the former employees of the Corporaon. In spite of speciﬁc plea of the appellant-Corporaon that the beneﬁt of the Scheme was extended from 05.06.1995, in view of approval granted by the Cabinet to the Scheme, the High Court has erroneously recorded a ﬁnding that no reason has been assigned to choose such cut-oﬀ date. It is true that all pensioners constute one class and whenever, revision is eﬀected, ordinarily such beneﬁt is to be extended to all the pensioners but at the same me, the scenario in the case on hand, is totally diﬀerent. On the facts of this case, it is to be noced that when the members of the respondent- Union rered, there was no Pension Scheme at all. They were merely governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and, on rerement, they were already granted the beneﬁt of such Scheme. In that view of the ma'er, only on the spacious plea that all the employees of the Corporaon constute homogeneous class, cannot queson the cut-oﬀ date ﬁxed for grant of Pension Scheme. 20. It is proﬁtable to refer a judgment of this Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another v. Amrit Lal Gandhi and others (1997) 2 SCC 342. Page 13 of 19 Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 The rao decided in the said case is idencal to the issue on hand in the present case. In the aforesaid case, pursuant to recommendaons made in the year 1986, by a commi'ee appointed by University Grants Commission, the Syndicate and Senate of the University has recommended for introducing a Pension Scheme for the employees of the University. The State Government’s approval was sought, which was given for introducing the Scheme with eﬀect from 01.01.1990. When such ﬁxaon of cut-oﬀ date from 01.01.90 was found fault with by the High Court and the High Court issued direcons to give eﬀect from 01.01.1986, while reversing the judgment of the High Court, this Court has held that ﬁxaon of cut-oﬀ date from 01.01.1990 cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. Relevant paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the judgment, read as under: “16. Applying the rao of the aforesaid decisions to the present case, we ﬁnd no jusﬁcaon for the High Court having substuted the date of 1-1- 1986 in lieu of 1-1-1990. It is evident that for introducing a pension scheme, which envisaged ﬁnancial implicaons, approval of the Rajasthan Government was required. In the le'er of 16-4-1991, wri'en to the Vice- Chancellors of diﬀerent universies of Rajasthan, it was stated as follows: “As per the direcon in regard to the aforesaid subject, the State Government has decided to introduce Pension Scheme in the Universies of the State w.e.f. 1-1-1990. In this regard the State Legislature has passed University Pension Rules and General Provident Fund Rules. Therefore, by enclosing a copy of University Pension Regulaons and General Provident Fund Regulaons with this le'er, it is requested that by obtaining approval of the competent body or Syndicate of the University, these Regulaons be implemented in the University together and necessary informaon regarding implementaon be inmated.” 17. The Syndicate and Senate of the University, when they had forwarded their recommendaons in 1986, did not contain a speciﬁc date with eﬀect from which the pension scheme was to be made applicable. Their recommendaons were subject to approval. The approval was granted by the Government, a8er the State Legislature had passed the University Pension Rules and General Provident Fund Rules. The Government had stated in its aﬃdavit before the High Court that the jusﬁcaon of the cut- Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 oﬀ date of 1-1-1990 was “wholly economic”. It cannot be said that the paying capacity is not a relevant or valid consideraon while ﬁxing the cut- oﬀ date. The University could, in 1991, validly frame Pension Regulaons to be made applicable prospecvely. It, however, chose to give them limited retrospecvely so as to cover a larger number of employees by taking into account the ﬁnancial impact of giving retrospecve operaon to the Pension Regulaons. It was decided that employees rering on or a8er 1-1- 1990 would be able to exercise the opon of gePng either pension or provident fund. Financial impact of making the Regulaons retrospecve can be the sole consideraon while ﬁxing a cut-oﬀ date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-oﬀ date was ﬁxed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ peons and substung the date of 1-1-1986 for 1-1-1990.” 21. The High Court, without nocing the diﬀerence of factual background, in the cases relied on by the respondent-writ peoner and without independently considering the issue in queson, has allowed the writ peon. In view of the same, we are of the view that judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside.” 14. Similar issue was also considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath Goyal’s case (supra) and it was observed as under:- “26. It is diﬃcult to accede to the argument on behalf of the employees that a decision of the Central Government/State Government to limit the beneﬁts only to employees, who rere or die on or a8er 1.4.1995, a8er calculang the ﬁnancial implicaons thereon, was either irraonal or arbitrary. Financial and economic implicaons are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administraon of the Government, at the Centre or at the State level. XXX XXX XXX XXX 32. The importance of considering ﬁnancial implicaons, while providing beneﬁts for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including in the following two cases. In State of Rajasthan and another v. Amritlal Gandhi and others, 1997(1) SCT 699 (SC) : AIR 1997 Supreme Court 782 this Court went so as far as to note that: Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 "... Financial impact of making the Regulaons retrospecve can be the sole consideraon while ﬁxing a cut-oﬀ date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-oﬀ date was ﬁxed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ peons and substung the date of 1.1.1986 for 1.1.1990." [Ibid at p. 78 (para 17)] (emphasis supplied). 33. More recently, in Veerasamy (supra), this Court observed that, ﬁnancial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-oﬀ date while implemenng a pension scheme on a revised basis. 1999(3) SCC 414 at p. 421 (para 15)]. In that case, the pension scheme applied diﬀerently to persons who had rered from service before 1.7.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed separate classes. 34. In State of Punjab and others v. Boota Singh and another, 2000(3) SCC 733, ("Boota Singh") a8er considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. Nakara (supra) to K.L. Rathee v. Union of India, 1997(3) SCT 478 (SC) : 1997(6) SCC 7, it was held that D.S. Nakara (supra) should not be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of persons who rered a8er a noﬁed date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. [2000(3) SCC 733 at p. 735 (para 8)]. 35. In State of Punjab and another v. J.L. Gupta and others, 2000(2) SCT 8 (SC) : 2000(3) SCC 736, where one of us was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh (supra) were reiterated, and it was held that for the grant of addional beneﬁt which had ﬁnancial implicaons, the prescripon of a speciﬁc future date for conferment of addional beneﬁt, could not be considered arbitrary. [Ibid at p. 737 (para 4)]. 36. In Ramrao and others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Associa#on and others, 2004(1) SCT 775 (SC) : 2004(2) SCC 76, a Division Bench of this Court said, even for the purpose of eﬀecng promoon, the ﬁxing of a cut-oﬀ date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it oﬀend Arcle 14 of the Constuon. Moreover, the Court held that possible hardship to be endured by a person as a result did not make cut-oﬀ dates violave of Arcle 14. [Ibid at p. 88 (para 33)]. Page 16 of 19 Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 37. In the instant case before us, the cut-oﬀ date has been ﬁxed as 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of ﬁnancial constraints. Consequently, we reject the contenon that the ﬁxing of the cut-oﬀ date was arbitrary, irraonal or had no raonal basis or that it oﬀends Arcle 14.” 15. A similar issue has also been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in PUDA Employees Welfare Society’s case (supra). In that case, the employees of the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (in short ‘PUDA’) had sought to quash the order of the Government, whereby proposal to implement a Pension Scheme as approved by the Competent Authority was rejected by the Government. A8er referring to “The State of UDar Pradesh v. Associa#on of Re#red Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad”, 2024 AIR (SC) 475; “Union of India and others v. M. Selvakumar” 2017(3) SCC 504; and “State of Orissa v. Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Karamchari Sangh”, 2023(4) Scale 332, it was held by this Court as under:- “39. It is well se'led law that the scope of judicial review in examining the policy ma'ers is very limited. The Courts do not and cannot examine the correctness, suitability or appropriateness of a policy, nor are the Courts advisers to the execuve on the ma'ers of policy, which the execuve is entled to formulate. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a parcular manner are absolutely diﬀerent. It is within the realm of the execuve to take a policy decision based on the prevailing circumstances for be'er administraon and it is not within the domain of the Courts to legislate. The Courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretaon, certain creave process is involved. The Courts have the jurisdicon to declare the law as unconstuonal. That too, where it is called for. The Court is called upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when a challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constuon or any other statutory right. Any proposal for implementaon of pension policy is subject to the approval of the Government of Punjab, which was never granted by the Government in the present case in view of poor ﬁnancial posion of the Authority. Page 17 of 19 Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 40. Similar issue has already been decided by this Court in CWP No.8501 of 2015 and other connected cases, #tled as "Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board's Employees Union vs State of Punjab and others", wherein the employees of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board were claiming similar relief and the same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 02.07.2024.” 16. It is thus clear from the above legal posion that ﬁxing the cut- oﬀ date is an execuve funcon based on several factors like economic condions, ﬁnancial constraints, administrave and other circumstances. Even if no reason is forthcoming from execuve, for ﬁxaon of a parcular date, it should not be interfered by Court, unless cut-oﬀ date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result. Financial impact of making the Regulaons retrospecve can be the sole consideraon while ﬁxing a cut-oﬀ date. 17. The above legal posion is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case also, the peoners were earlier governed by the Act, 1952, i.e. the beneﬁts of the Contributory Provident Fund. All the employees like peoners, who rered before 26.12.2006, were paid all reral beneﬁts, applicable to them. As the Pension Scheme was not in existence during that me, it cannot be the case of violaon of any service condions either. The Pension Scheme is introduced by way of noﬁcaon dated 26.12.2006, by giving eﬀect from this date, when the Cabinet has approved the Scheme. The employees who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and rered prior to 26.12.2006 and the employees who were in service and connued a8er this date, cannot be treated as a homogeneous class. As already noced above, it is always open for the employer to introduce new Schemes and beneﬁts, having regard to ﬁnancial condion of the employer. Whenever such new beneﬁt is extended for the exisng employees, rered employees cannot seek such beneﬁt, merely on the ground that they too were the former employees of the Corporaon. Page 18 of 19 Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP No.6181 of 2013 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008457 CWP No.19188 of 2018 (O&M) 2025:PHHC: 008459 18. The Government has ﬁxed a speciﬁc cut-oﬀ date for implementaon of the Pension Regulaon. The said cut-oﬀ date has been ﬁxed a8er the Polluon Control Board expressed its inability to bear the ﬁnancial burden regarding the pension payable to the peoners as per the representaons made by them. The Policy decision is in the hands of the Government and the High Court should not interfere in said Policy decision by way of judicial review or by issuing any writ in this regard. The acon of the respondents cannot be held to be discriminatory in this regard. 19. On account of the enre discussion as above, this Court holds that there is no merit in any of these peons. As such, both these peons are hereby dismissed. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case ﬁle. January 21, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes Sarita Rani 2025.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

HARBANS SINGH AHUJA AND ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Judgment text