Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Pb vs J.S. Sandhu on 24 January, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009324
2024:PHHC:009324
RSA-1527-1996 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(215)
RSA-1527-1996 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 24.01.2024
The State of Punjab and another ... Appellants
Versus
J.S.Sandhu ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab
Respondent was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.10.1996.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Defendants are in second appeal before this Court challenging the
concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below.
2. Plaintiff-respondent, who retired from the post of Superintending
Engineer on 31.03.1984, has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the
fixation of cut-off date of 31.03.1985 in the revised pension formula
notified by memo dated 09.07.1985 is void. It has been pleaded that by this
notification, the recommendations of Second Punjab Pay Commission were
accepted after being notified on 22.12.1980 and computation of pension,
D.C.R.G. was liberalised. It has been averred that as the plaintiff retired
before the cut-off date, he has been excluded from the grant of the benefit.
He has sought declaration to the effect that he is entitled to the retiral
benefits along with interest @ 18%. Upon being served, defendants filed a
written statement taking various objections. A stand has been taken that as
the instructions were issued after the retirement of the plaintiff-respondent
and were made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.1985, he is not entitled to the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009324
2024:PHHC:009324
RSA-1527-1996 (O&M) -2-
benefits, which have flown therefrom. On the basis of pleadings of the
parties, issues were framed and after they led evidence, by judgment and
decree 15.09.1989, suit was decreed and it was held that the plaintiff-
respondent is entitled to revised pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1985 in
accordance with the formula notified vide memo dated 09.07.1985. Appeal
by defendants-State and cross objections by plaintiff-respondent were
dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated
03.01.1996. It is in this background that the State is before this Court in the
instant appeal.
3. I have heard the State counsel and examined the record with his
able assistance.
4. The controversy, which has came up for determination before this
Court, has been settled by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and
others Versus Boota Singh, 2000 (3) SCC 733, which has been followed in
State of Punjab Versus J.L.Gupta, 2000 (3) SCC 736. The observations of
the Apex Court in J.L.Gupta's case (supra) deserve to be noticed and are
reproduced hereunder:-
"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 governed 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009324
2024:PHHC:009324
RSA-1527-1996 (O&M) -3-
additional benefits cannot be considered arbitrary. It was
further held that:
"In the case of Indian Ex-Services League & Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors. Etc. (1991) 2 SCC 104
this Court distinguished the decision in Nakara's
case (supra) and held that the ambit of that decision
cannot be enlarged to cover all claims by retirees or
a demand for an identical 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 Vs. Union of
India & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 7 where this Court,
after referring to various judgments 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 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. In this view, the judgment of the
High Court cannot be sustained."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009324
2024:PHHC:009324
RSA-1527-1996 (O&M) -4-
5. The matters before the Supreme Court had arisen out of the same
notifications as are in question in the present appeal and this Court is bound
by the decisions of the highest Court of country.
6. In view of the above legal position, finding recorded by the
Courts below cannot be sustained and are reversed.
7. Considering that the plaintiff-respondent retired from service in
1984 and this appeal was admitted in 1987 without any interim order, it is
directed that in case the revised pensionary benefits have been disbursed to
the plaintiff-respondent, no recovery shall be made from him/his legal
heirs.
8. Appeal is disposed of.
24.01.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Kamal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009324
4 of 4
