State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. J.L. Gupta & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8006 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8006 of 1999)
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1133, 1134, 1136, 1135, 1138, 1137, 1139, 1130, 1131 and 1132 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 11424, 12136, 12866, 13606, 16702, 17569, 18381, 8008, 80012 and 8017 of 1999))
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.98 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 11933 of 1993)
Petitioner: State of Punjab & Anr.
Respondent: J.L. Gupta & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8006 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8006 of 1999)
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1133, 1134, 1136, 1135, 1138, 1137, 1139, 1130, 1131 and 1132 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 11424, 12136, 12866, 13606, 16702, 17569, 18381, 8008, 80012 and 8017 of 1999))
(From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.98 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 11933 of 1993)
Judges: S. SAGHIR AHMED & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 16, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. Jayshree Anand, Additional Advocate General (Punjab) Mr. H.S. Munjral, Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Mr. H.M. Singh, Mr. B. Kanta Rao, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Mr. P. Varma, Mr. Anis Ahmad Khan, Mr. I.P. Singh, Mr. Pankaj Kalra, Mr. Mahabir Singh, Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Mr. Vipin Gogia, Mrs. Jaspreet Gogia, Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Mr. T.S. Arora, Mr. S.K. Mehta, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocates for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION LAW
Articles 14, 16 – Arbitrariness – Notification of State Govern-ment dated 9.7.85 – Dearness allowance and ad-hoc dearness allow-ance at price index of 568 to be treated as dearness pay for purposes of granting retiral benefits to those who retire after 31.3.85 – Those who retired prior to 31.3.85 claiming same bene-fits. Held that they were governed by different rules. They cannot claim the benefit as they cannot be equated with those retiring on or after 31.3.85. Decision is not arbitrary.
Articles 14, 16 – Arbitrariness – Notification of State Govern-ment dated 9.7.85 – Dearness allowance and ad-hoc dearness allow-ance at price index of 568 to be treated as dearness pay for purposes of granting retiral benefits to those who retire after 31.3.85 – Those who retired prior to 31.3.85 claiming same bene-fits. Held that they were governed by different rules. They cannot claim the benefit as they cannot be equated with those retiring on or after 31.3.85. Decision is not arbitrary.
Held:
In Boota Singh’s case it has also been held that the benefit conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985 can be claimed by those who retire after the date stipulated in the notification and those who have retired prior to the stipulated date in the notification are government by different rules. They are governed by the old rules, i.e., the rules prevalent at the time when they retire. The two categories of persons are governed by different sets of rules. They cannot be equated. The respondents are thus not entitled to claim benefits under the notification dated 9th July, 1985 since the said benefits became available on a much later date to the retiring employees by reason of change in rules relating to pensionary benefits. (Paras 4, 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. K.L. Rathee v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1997 (5) SC 698
2. Indian Ex-Services League & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. reported in JT 1991 (1) SC 243
2. Indian Ex-Services League & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. reported in JT 1991 (1) SC 243
JUDGEMENT:
SABHARWAL J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The ex-employees of State of Punjab are respondents in this appeal and in the connected appeals. All of them retired from the service prior to 31st March, 1985. Their pensionary benefits were calculated as per the rules prevalent at the time of their re-tirement. By a notification/order dated 9th July, 1985 issued by Governemt of Punjab, Department of Finance, it was inter alia decided that the dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance sanctioned up to the consumers price level index no. 568 will be treated as dearness pay for the purposes of pensionary benefits, i.e., for calculating pension, gratuity/DCRG, internal gratuity in respect of the employees retired on or after 31st March, 1985. Since the respondents were not given the benefit of the aforesaid notification, they filed a writ petition in the High Court claim-ing the benefits conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 18th Novem-ber, 1998 allowed the writ petition directing the State of Punjab to pay all dues to the writ petitioners on the basis of the order dated 9th July, 1985 noticing that the question involved in the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Dr. Asa Singh’s case.
3. The decision in the case of Dr. Asa Singh has been considered and explained in a later decision of this Court (State of Punjab & Ors v. Boota Singh & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 10674 of 1996 decided on 7th August, 1997). In this decision, it has been noticed that in Dr. Asa Singh case, after the dismissal of the special leave petition on 31th May, 1993, the State Government sought to reopen the matter by filing an interlocutoy application before the High Court for clarification. The clarification appli-cation was dismissed by the High Court and the judgment of the High Court was upheld by this Court holding that since the main judgment had become final, the question could not be reagitated through mode of interlocutory application for clarification. It was also noticed that the decision in Dr. Asa Singh’s case had no applicability and Boota Singh’s case could not be decided in the same fashion as Dr. Asa Singh’s case because the challenge in the appeal was to the main judgment of the High Court and not to any order passed on clarification application.
4. In Boota Singh’s case it has also been held that the benefit conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985 can be claimed by those who retire after the date stipulated in the notification and those who have retired prior to the stipulated date in the notification are government by different rules. They are governed by the old rules, i.e., the rules prevalent at the time when they retire. The two categories of persons are governed by different sets of rules. They cannot be equated. The grant of additional benefit has financial implications and the specific date for the conferment of additional benefits cannot be considered arbitrary. It was further held that :
“In the case of Indian Ex-Services League & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. reported in JT 1991 (1) SC 243 = (1991(1) SCR(158) this Court distinguished the decision in Nakara’s case (supra)and held that the ambit of that decision cannot be en-larged to cover all claim by retirees or a demand for an identi-cal amount of pension to every retiree, irrespective of the date of retirement even though the emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension be_different. We need not cite other subsequent decisions which have also distinguished Nakara’s case(supra). The latest decision is in the case of K.L. Rathee v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1997 (5) SC 698 = (1997(4) Scale 134) where this Court, after referring to various judgment of this Court, has held that Nakara’s case cannot be interpreted to mean that emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same Status, must be treated to be the same. The respondents are not entitled to claim benefits which became available at a much later date to retiring employees by reason of changes in the rules relating to pensionary benefits.”
5. The controversy involved in the present appeal and connected appeals is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. The re-spondents are thus not entitled to claim benefits under the notification dated 9th July, 1985 since the said benefits became available on a much later date to the retiring employees by reason of change in rules relating to pensionary benefits. In this view, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
6. Before parting, we place on record our deep anguish for the unavoidable litigation in this Court in the form of the present appeals at the instance of the State of Punjab.appellants. The decision in Boota Singh’s case had been rendered more than a year earlier than the impugned judgment of the High Court. It is a matter of regret that Boota Singh’s decision was not brought to the notice of the High Court with the result that the High Court, on the basis or Dr. Asa Singh’s case, allowed the writ petitions. The explanation that Boota Singh’s decision was not reported and it could not be brought to the notice of the counsel and, there-fore, could not be cited before the High Court, shows a total casual approach particularly when the State of Punjab itself was the appellant in the said case. Such casual approach results in unnecessary litigation and waste of time besides incurring of unnecessary expense and waste of public money. We can only ex-press a hope that in future litigants such as State Governments would be more careful.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The ex-employees of State of Punjab are respondents in this appeal and in the connected appeals. All of them retired from the service prior to 31st March, 1985. Their pensionary benefits were calculated as per the rules prevalent at the time of their re-tirement. By a notification/order dated 9th July, 1985 issued by Governemt of Punjab, Department of Finance, it was inter alia decided that the dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance sanctioned up to the consumers price level index no. 568 will be treated as dearness pay for the purposes of pensionary benefits, i.e., for calculating pension, gratuity/DCRG, internal gratuity in respect of the employees retired on or after 31st March, 1985. Since the respondents were not given the benefit of the aforesaid notification, they filed a writ petition in the High Court claim-ing the benefits conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 18th Novem-ber, 1998 allowed the writ petition directing the State of Punjab to pay all dues to the writ petitioners on the basis of the order dated 9th July, 1985 noticing that the question involved in the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Dr. Asa Singh’s case.
3. The decision in the case of Dr. Asa Singh has been considered and explained in a later decision of this Court (State of Punjab & Ors v. Boota Singh & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 10674 of 1996 decided on 7th August, 1997). In this decision, it has been noticed that in Dr. Asa Singh case, after the dismissal of the special leave petition on 31th May, 1993, the State Government sought to reopen the matter by filing an interlocutoy application before the High Court for clarification. The clarification appli-cation was dismissed by the High Court and the judgment of the High Court was upheld by this Court holding that since the main judgment had become final, the question could not be reagitated through mode of interlocutory application for clarification. It was also noticed that the decision in Dr. Asa Singh’s case had no applicability and Boota Singh’s case could not be decided in the same fashion as Dr. Asa Singh’s case because the challenge in the appeal was to the main judgment of the High Court and not to any order passed on clarification application.
4. In Boota Singh’s case it has also been held that the benefit conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985 can be claimed by those who retire after the date stipulated in the notification and those who have retired prior to the stipulated date in the notification are government by different rules. They are governed by the old rules, i.e., the rules prevalent at the time when they retire. The two categories of persons are governed by different sets of rules. They cannot be equated. The grant of additional benefit has financial implications and the specific date for the conferment of additional benefits cannot be considered arbitrary. It was further held that :
“In the case of Indian Ex-Services League & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. reported in JT 1991 (1) SC 243 = (1991(1) SCR(158) this Court distinguished the decision in Nakara’s case (supra)and held that the ambit of that decision cannot be en-larged to cover all claim by retirees or a demand for an identi-cal amount of pension to every retiree, irrespective of the date of retirement even though the emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension be_different. We need not cite other subsequent decisions which have also distinguished Nakara’s case(supra). The latest decision is in the case of K.L. Rathee v. Union of India & Ors. JT 1997 (5) SC 698 = (1997(4) Scale 134) where this Court, after referring to various judgment of this Court, has held that Nakara’s case cannot be interpreted to mean that emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same Status, must be treated to be the same. The respondents are not entitled to claim benefits which became available at a much later date to retiring employees by reason of changes in the rules relating to pensionary benefits.”
5. The controversy involved in the present appeal and connected appeals is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. The re-spondents are thus not entitled to claim benefits under the notification dated 9th July, 1985 since the said benefits became available on a much later date to the retiring employees by reason of change in rules relating to pensionary benefits. In this view, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
6. Before parting, we place on record our deep anguish for the unavoidable litigation in this Court in the form of the present appeals at the instance of the State of Punjab.appellants. The decision in Boota Singh’s case had been rendered more than a year earlier than the impugned judgment of the High Court. It is a matter of regret that Boota Singh’s decision was not brought to the notice of the High Court with the result that the High Court, on the basis or Dr. Asa Singh’s case, allowed the writ petitions. The explanation that Boota Singh’s decision was not reported and it could not be brought to the notice of the counsel and, there-fore, could not be cited before the High Court, shows a total casual approach particularly when the State of Punjab itself was the appellant in the said case. Such casual approach results in unnecessary litigation and waste of time besides incurring of unnecessary expense and waste of public money. We can only ex-press a hope that in future litigants such as State Governments would be more careful.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
