Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhmander Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001969
2024:PHHC:001969
CWP-273-2024 & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
129+127+130 (3 cases) CWP-273-2024
Date of Decision: 09.01.2024
Sukhmander Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
With
CWP-248-2024
Satnam Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
And
CWP-285-2024
Virpal Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners
(in all the petitions)
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab
***
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 10-01-2024 04:37:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001969
2024:PHHC:001969
CWP-273-2024 & connected cases -2-
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. As the issue involved is common, with the consent of contesting
parties, all the captioned petitions are taken up together. For the sake of
brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP No.273 of 2024.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 12.12.2023
(Annexure P-12) passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot-
respondent No.5 whereby it has been held that special pay/special allowance
cannot be considered for the fixation of pension.
3. The petitioner on 02.08.1982 joined respondent-department as
Constable. The petitioner during the service was extended benefit of special
pay. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from the
service on 28.02.2018. The petitioner is getting pension and respondent-
department while calculating pension has not taken care of component of
special pay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide
judgment dated 31.08.1992 in Radhe Krishan Sharma v. State of Haryana,
CWP No.2239 of 1991 settled the issue. The Court has clearly held that
special pay would be included in the salary component while calculating
pension. Following the said judgment, a number of writ petitions have been
decided by different benches of this Court.
5. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, who on advance notice is present
in Court on behalf of the respondents, does not dispute the fact that case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Radhe Krishan
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001969
2024:PHHC:001969
CWP-273-2024 & connected cases -3-
Sharma (supra) as well as subsequent judgments including judgment dated
27.09.2018 passed by this Court in Mukhtiar Singh Gill v. State of Punjab
and others, CWP No.18727 of 2013.
6. In view of law laid down by this Court, the respondent is duty
bound to include special pay component in the salary while calculating
pension. Despite resolution of the issue in 1992, a number of employees are
forced to approach this Court. It is more desirable to extend the said benefit to
all the employees than to compel them to approach this Court which is already
inundated with litigation.
7. In view of aforesaid facts and findings, the present petitions stand
disposed of in terms of judgment passed by this Court in Radhe Krishan
Sharma (supra).
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
09.01.2024
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001969
3 of 3
