Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Retrospective NPA Claims by Retired Veterinarians
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant ruling, dismissing petitions filed by retired veterinary doctors who sought the inclusion of non-practising allowance (NPA) in their pension benefits. The court firmly stated that this financial benefit cannot be extended retrospectively to those who retired before the crucial cut-off date of July 1, 2011.
Details of the Court Proceedings and Petitioners' Arguments
Justice Namit Kumar presided over the case and passed the orders after disposing of the petitions. The retired veterinarians, including notable petitioner Major Dr Bhupindra Singh and several others from the Punjab animal husbandry department, had superannuated between 1988 and 2009. They approached the court seeking a directive to the state government to grant them NPA as part of their pension, effective from July 1, 2011, along with arrears and an 18% penal interest.
The petitioners based their argument on a government notification dated May 20, 2011, which made NPA admissible to serving veterinary doctors. However, they pointed out that this benefit was only extended to those retiring on or after July 1, 2011. They contended that this created an arbitrary and unfair classification between similarly situated employees—distinguishing those receiving pension with NPA from those without it based solely on their retirement date.
Furthermore, the retired veterinarians submitted that medical doctors had been granted similar benefits retrospectively in the past, and they argued that veterinarians should be treated on par with them, ensuring equitable treatment across professions.
State Government's Opposition and Legal Grounds
The state government strongly opposed the plea, emphasizing that the May 20, 2011 notification explicitly specified that the instructions would come into force with effect from July 1, 2011. Since all the petitioners had retired prior to that date—with the latest retirement occurring in 2009—they were governed by the pension rules applicable at the time of their retirement.
The government contended that there was no intention to grant the benefit retrospectively and that doing so would be contrary to the finance department's instructions. This stance highlighted the administrative and financial implications of altering pension rules for past retirees.
Court's Rationale and Final Ruling
The court carefully examined the facts, noting that all petitioners had retired well before the issuance of the 2011 notification, and importantly, the notification itself was not challenged in the present petitions. Relying on established Supreme Court judgments on similar issues, the High Court reiterated a fundamental legal principle: employees who retire before a cut-off date cannot claim benefits introduced subsequently, as they are governed by the rules in force at the time of their retirement.
The bench held that the fixation of a specific date for extending financial benefits, such as NPA, cannot be considered arbitrary merely because it excludes those who retired earlier. This decision underscores the importance of cut-off dates in pension and benefit schemes to maintain administrative consistency and fiscal responsibility.
Ultimately, the court found that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of NPA in their pension. Concluding that there was no merit in the petitions, the High Court dismissed them, thereby upholding the state government's position and setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
