Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed petitions filed by retired veterinary doctors seeking the inclusion of non-practising allowance (NPA) in their pension benefits, ruling that the benefit cannot be extended retrospectively to those who retired before July 1, 2011.Justice Namit Kumar passed these orders after disposing of petitions filed by the retired veterinarians. The petitioners, including Major Dr Bhupindra Singh and several others of the Punjab animal husbandry department, superannuated between 1988 and 2009. They approached the court seeking a direction to the state govt to grant them NPA as part of their pension with effect from July 1, 2011, along with arrears and 18% penal interest.The petitioners argued that while NPA was made admissible to serving veterinary doctors under a govt notification dated May 20, 2011, the benefit was extended only to those retiring on or after July 1, 2011. They contended this created an arbitrary classification between similarly situated employees—those receiving pension with NPA and those without it—based solely on their date of retirement.They submitted that medical doctors were granted similar benefits retrospectively and veterinarians should be treated on a par with them.The state govt opposed the plea, stating that the May 20, 2011, notification clearly specified the instructions would come into force with effect from July 1, 2011. Since all petitioners retired prior to that date—the latest being in 2009—they were governed by the pension rules applicable at the time of their retirement. The govt contended that there was no intention to grant the benefit retrospectively and that doing so would be contrary to finance department instructions.The court noted all petitioners retired well before the issuance of the 2011 notification and the notification itself was not challenged in the present petitions.Relying on certain Supreme Court judgments on similar issues, the HC reiterated the principle that 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 the fixation of a specific date for extending financial benefits cannot be considered arbitrary merely because it excludes those who retired earlier.Holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of NPA in their pension, the Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them.
