[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupindra Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : 22.12.2025
Pronounced on : 14.01.2026
Uploaded on : 14.01.2026
(i) CWP-5070-2020 (O&M)
Major Dr. Bhupindra Singh and others ........Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
(ii) CWP-10360-2023
Tejinder Kumar Sharma and others ........Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Pushp Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-5070-2020.
Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-10360-2023.
Mr. Surya Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
*****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This judgment shall dispose of both the above-said writ
petitions, as common question of law and facts are involved for
adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-
5070-2020, titled as 'Major Dr. Bhupindra Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab and others'.
2. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this
Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
1 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the
respondents to grant the element of Non-Practicing Allowance in the
pension of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.07.2011, as per notification dated
20.05.2011 (Annexure P-6), with all consequential benefits and arrears
be released along with 18% penal interest.
3. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are
that the petitioners were employed in the Animal Husbandry
Department as Veterinary Doctors and have retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation between the years 1988 to 2009. The
precise grievance raised in the present petition is that the respondents
have included the Non-Practicing Allowance (hereinafter referred to as
'NPA') to the pension of the veterinary doctors as is being given to the
medical doctors, however, the said benefit has only been confined to the
retirees who have retired after 01.07.2011. Further, the respondents
without any reasonable nexus have put the employees into two
categories, first who are getting pension with Non-Practicing Allowance
and second who are getting pension without Non-Practicing Allowance.
The service particulars of the petitioners as given in Annexure P-1 are
reproduced as under :-
Sr. Name Age Father's name Address DOA DOR
No. (Post) (Post)
1. Major Dr. 75 Wishan Singh 201 Hardev Nagar 24.07.1963 30.04.2001
Bhupindra Singh Jal (VO) (DDAH)
2. Dr. Manmohan 78 D.D. Khosla 16 Windsor Park Jal 02.08.1964 31.07.1998
Khosla (VO) (AD)
3. Dr. Sawinder Singh 72 Kesar Singh 32/103 Shankar 10.07.1970 31.12.2004
Garden Colony Jal (VO) (Director
AH) PB
4. Dr. Madan Lal 75 Naurata Ram 209 Phase-2 Mohali 14.05.1965 31.12.2001
Kaushal (VO) (Joint
Director)
2 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
5. Dr. Atma Singh 77 Krishan Singh 65-B Model Town 03.05.1966 30.04.1999
Patti Phagwara (VO) (AD)
6. Dr. Joginder Singh 73 Pritam Chand 589/11 Onkar Nagar 03.06.1971 23.03.2003
Ahluwalia Gurdaspur (VO) (SVO)
7. Dr. Kartar Singh 78 Jagat Singh 32/4 Partap Nagar 23.09.1963 31.08.1998
Kadian (VO) (SVO)
8. Dr. Gurdip Singh 78 Bhan Singh 16-Ward H No.17 03.05.1966 30.04.1998
Court Road (VO) (AD)
Gurdaspur
9 Dr. Vijay Kumar 72 Sardari Lal AVO 19/55 Dream 30.03.1971 31.03.2004
Kapil City Amritsar (VO) (AD)
10. Dr. Subhash 71 Lal Chand 560-B Adarsh Nagar 03.06.1970 30.11.2005
Chander Rawla Phagwara (VO) (AD)
11. Dr. B.R. Sareen 73 Shiv Nath Lane No.6 25.08.1967 31.10.2003
Sareen Satnampura (VO) (SVO)
Phagwara
12. Dr. Parvesh Kumar 72 Hira Lal Sahi HL-126 Roop Nagar 31.05.1971 30.11.2004
Sahi Colony Amritsar (VO) (SVO)
13. Dr. Daljit Singh 81 Narinder Singh Gali No.4-A 16.08.1962 30.09.1995
Bedi Bedi Satnampura (VO) (SVO)
Phagwara
14. Dr. Bachitter Singh 84 Ajmer Singh 22281 Dhobiana 12.09.1960 31.01.1992
Road Bathinda (VO) (SVO)
15. Dr. Jai Gopal 80 Ram Chand 300 Ward No.9 25.09.1962 28.02.1996
Garhshankar (VO) (SVO)
16. Dr. Surinderjit 76 Gurbax Singh 34-F7/167 LIC 21.05.1968 31.07.2000
Singh Colony Batala Road (VO) (SVO)
Amritsar
17. Dr. H.K. Pahwa 72 Sat Ram Dass 1830 Rajinder 14.08.1973 31.08.2004
Colony Rohtak (VO) (VO)
18. Dr. D.S. Bajaj 76 Gobind Singh 349-R Model Town 05.05.1965 31.01.2001
Jal (VO) (Joint
Director)
19. Dr. Surinder Pal 76 Harbhai Singh B-XII 133/1 05.08.1964 30.08.2000
Singh Barar Danewalia Street (VO) (DDAH)
Faridkot
20. Dr. Harnek Singh 81 Balwant Singh 22673 Gali No.6 10.08.1962 31.03.1995
Bhagu Road (VO) (SVO)
Bathinda
21. Dr. Tejinder Singh 74 Kartar Singh C-2177 Ranjit 03.05.1966 30.09.2009
Bedi Bedi Avenue Amrtisar (VO) (DDAH)
22. Dr. Kalyan Singh 71 Sant Singh 14 Hardayal Nagar 19.04.1974 30.11.2005
Jal (VO) (AD)
23. Dr. Ashok Mehngi 61 Madan Gopal Old Post Office St. 04.06.1980 30.06.2002
Mehngi Zeera (VO) (VO)
24. Dr. Kulbhushan Lal 80 Gauri Shankar 699 Gopal Nagar 28.09.1963 29.02.1996
Prashar Hoshiarpur (VO) (SVO)
3 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
25. Dr. Mohan Singh 87 Pheru Ram 35 GTB Nagar Jal 29.05.1967 31.12.1989
Saini (VO) (AD)
26. Dr. Ram Chand 80 Bhag Ram 58 Apna Ghar 19.07.1963 31.10.1993
Society Pritampura (VO) (SVO)
Delhi-34
27. Dr. Gurmeet Singh 78 Santokh Singh 28 Sehaj Enclave 26.06.1961 30.04.1998
The Mall Amritsar (VO) (DDAH)
28. Dr. Paramvir Rai 72 Sobeg Singh Rai Academy Road Opp. 31.10.1984 15.12.2004
Water Treatment (VO) (VO)
Plant Anandpur
Sahib
29. Dr. C.L. Kathuria 77 Nota Ram B-6/254 Chak Guru 24.07.1964 31.05.1999
Kathuria Nagar Nawanshr (VO) (SVO)
30. Dr. Shyam Sunder 84 Narayan Dass Krishna Gali 15.09.1959 31.08.1992
Mission Road (VO) (SVO)
Pathankot
31. Dr. Bhupinder 76 Dalip Singh 64-C SBS Nagar 03.07.1963 30.11.2000
Singh Gill Pakhowal Road (VO) (Joint
LDH Director)
32. Dr. Chanan Singh 99 Jangi Singh 1011 Rama Mandi 15.08.1947 31.01.1977
Jal (VO) (VO)
33. Dr. Surjit Singh 75 Kartar Singh 1824/6 SBS Nagar 14.09.1968 30.04.2001
Deol GT Road Moga (VO) (SVO)
34. Dr. Jit Sigh Virk 69 Bahadar Singh 2554 HIG Flat Dugri 02.12.1978 31.03.2005
Virk UE-11 LDH (VO) (VO)
35. Dr. Tehal Singh 64 Kartar Singh Vill Jandali P.O. 02.12.1970 07.09.2002
Nizampur LDH (VO) (VO)
36. Dr. Gurdip Singh 75 Bhagat Singh Dhesi Eye Hospital 22.08.1966 30.06.2001
Dhesi Dhesi Nakodar (VO) (SVO)
37. Dr. Albert Singh 77 Sadhu Singh VPO Ramidi Distt. 25.05.1973 30.06.1999
Kapurthala (VO) (SVO)
38. Dr. Harinder Pal 71 Hari Singh 187 Indra Park Jal 16.11.1969 31.05.2005
Singh (VO) (Joint
Director)
39. Dr. Malkit Singh 88 Harkishan Vill Bajra P.O. 10.09.1954 30.06.1988
Singh Sammipur Jal (VO) (DDAH)
40. Dr. Madan Mohan 75 Bhagwan Singh VPO Gohawar Distt. 27.09.1963 31.03.1998
Singh Jal (VO) (SVO)
41. Dr. Simarjit Singh 71 Gurbax Singh 106 New Jawar 17.06.1971 31.07.2005
Nagar Jal (VO) (DDAH)
42. Dr. Kartar Singh 79 Narinder Singh 351 Urban Estate 28.08.1958 31.03.1997
Phagwara (VO) (SVO)
43. Dr. Raj Sharma 75 Mela Ram 161 Abrol Nagar 06.06.1967 31.01.2002
Sharma Pathankot (VO) (SVO)
44. Dr. Janak Raj 80 Bhim Sen 76 Budh Ram 05.08.1971 31.07.1996
Colony Hoshiarpur (VO) (VO)
4 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
3(i) It has further been pleaded that the veterinary doctors
employed in the State of Punjab, made a representation to the
respondents that they should be granted the same pay scale as is being
granted to the Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons as per the
recommendations of the Pay Commission but the same was not granted
to them. Consequently, they approached this Court by filing CWP
No.6286 of 1986 titled as 'Dr. Sukhdev Singh and others Vs. The State
of Punjab and another' and the said writ petition was partly allowed
vide order dated 02.06.1989. The concluding para of the said order
reads as under :-
"For the reasons recorded above, this writ
petition is partly allowed with costs. Counsel's fee
Rs.1,000/-. A direction is given to the respondents to allow
Selection Grade on twenty per cent posts of Veterinary
Officers with effect from 1-1-1978 when the pay scales
were revised by the Punjab Government. If it is considered
necessary in the aforesaid process to revise the pay scales
of promotional posts, it is left to the State Government to
do so as well. These directions be complied with in a
period of three months."
3(ii) Thereafter, the petitioners therein, filed review application
bearing No.RA-142-1989 which was allowed by this Court, vide order
dated 11.09.1990 (Annexure P-2), with the following directions :-
"For the reasons stated above, this Review
Application is allowed with costs which are quantified at
Rs.1000/-. In addition to the relief already granted, a
direction is given to the respondents to allow the revised
pay scale of 940-1850 to Veterinary Assistant Surgeons
w.e.f. January 1, 1978 on the basis of the order of the
5 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
Government as reproduced above, equating the pay scales
of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons to that of Medical Officers
and Dental Surgeons. The respondents would also allow
consequential reliefs to the petitioners on that account."
3(iii) In compliance to the said judgment, the veterinary officers
were granted the pay scale of Rs.940-1850 and selection grade of
Rs.1000-1850 @ 24% w.e.f. 01.01.1978, vide notification dated
16.03.1998 (Annexure P-3). Further, the respondent-State issued
instructions dated 14.09.2009, vide which Non-Practicing Allowance
was considered to be a part of pay and was made admissible to doctors
appointed in the State of Punjab in the Department of Health and Family
Welfare and Department of Medical Education and Research (Annexure
P-4). Thereafter, instructions dated 23.01.2010 were issued by the
respondents, vide which the Punjab Civil Medical (State Service Group
A) Rules, 1972 were amended and Non-Practicing Allowance was made
admissible to the doctors appointed in the State of Punjab,
retrospectively from 24.03.1972 (Annexure P-5). Further, the
respondent issued instructions dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure P-6), vide
which Non-Practicing Allowance was considered to be a part of pay and
was made admissible for veterinary doctors appointed in the State of
Punjab and the said orders were made effective w.e.f. 01.07.2011.
However, the benefit of said notification has not been extended to the
present petitioners, who have retired between the years 1988 to 2009.
Hence the instant writ petition.
6 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
4. In short reply filed by way of affidavit of Dr. Sangeeta
Toor, Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Punjab, on behalf of
respondents No.1 to 3, it has been stated as under :-
"1. xx xx xx xx
2. That in the instant writ petition, the petitioners have
inter-alia prayed for issuing the direction to the
Respondents to grant the element of Non-Practicing
Allowance (NPA) in their pension w.e.f. 01.07.2011. The
Government had issued an instruction dated 20.05.2011
(Annexure P-6) vide which non-practicing allowance was
considered to be part of Pay and was being made
admissible for Veterinary Doctors appointed in the State of
Punjab. Said orders were made effective from 01.07.2011.
3. That the Petitioners herein are now contending that,
they all have retired prior to July 2011 and they are entitled
to NPA as provided to Medical Doctors. However, it is
apposite to mention at this stage that, in the instructions
dated 20.05.2011, it was clearly pointed out that said
instructions shall come into force w.e.f. 01.07.2011. Thus, it
could be inferred that there is no intent to bring upon any
retrospective benefit on anyone.
4. That it could be easily gathered from the list
appended as Annexure P-l along with the writ petition
displaying the details of service of all the Petitioners and it
is pertinent to point out that all the petitioners retired from
the service well prior to 01.07.201l i.e., the date of
enforcing the instructions for applying the NPA. Moreover,
the most recent retired petitioner is in 2009 (only one
Petitioner).
5. That the Respondents are obligated towards the
service of the Petitioner rendered in the Department but,
the prayer of the Petitioner cannot be allowed as it is
7 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
against the instructions being issued by the Department of
Finance.
xx xx xx xx xx"
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners, who have retired prior to 01.07.2011, have not been granted
the benefit of the instructions dated 20.05.2011 as they have not been
granted the Non-Practicing Allowance. He further submitted that the
respondents have divided the employees in two groups, one who retired
prior to 01.07.2011 and getting pension without the benefit of Non-
Practicing Allowance and second who retired after 01.07.2011 and
getting pension with the benefit of Non-Practicing Allowance. The said
action of the respondents dividing the employees in two categories is
totally illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that for claiming the
said benefit, the petitioners have submitted a representation dated
22.07.2018 (Annexure P-7) before the respondents, but no action has
been taken on the same.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the
averments made in the short reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to
3, submitted that the instructions dated 20.05.2011, issued by the
Government, have been made applicable w.e.f. 01.07.2011, whereas all
the petitioners have retired from service prior to 2009 and, therefore, the
claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted as it is against the
instructions being issued by the Department of Finance.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant documents.
8 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
8. The only question that arises for consideration in the
present case is as to whether the petitioners, who have retired from
service between the years 1988 and 2009, are entitled for the benefit of
Non-Practicing Allowance in their pension or not ?
9. Admittedly, the petitioners have retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation between the years 1988 to 2009. The
most recently retired petitioner is petitioner No.21, who retired on
30.09.2009, otherwise all the petitioners have retired much prior to
issuance of notification dated 20.05.2011. Furthermore, the said
notification dated 20.05.2011, vide which element of Non-Practicing
Allowance has been made part of pension, has not been challenged by
the petitioners in the present writ petition. Even otherwise, the
petitioners, who had already retired from service between the years
1988 to 2009, cannot be allowed to raise the said claim at this belated
stage.
10. Similar issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Punjab Vs. J.L. Gupta : 2000(2) SCT 8, wherein the
retired employees, who got superannuated prior to 31.03.1985, were
claiming pensionary benefits on the basis of notification/order dated
09.07.1985, issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of
Finance, whereby it was decided that 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 purpose of pensionary
benefits i.e., for calculating pension, gratuity/DCRG, internal gratuity in
respect of the employees retired on or after 31.03.1985. The employees,
9 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
who retired prior to issuance of the said notification, challenged the
same before this Court and their claim was accepted while relying upon
the decision in the case of Dr. Asa Singh. However, the decision in the
case of Dr. Asa Singh was considered and explained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Boota
Singh and others, Civil Appeal No.10674 of 1996, decided on
07.08.1997, and the said decision was not brought to the notice of this
Court and the claim of the petitioners therein was allowed while relying
upon the case of Dr. Asa Singh. Thereafter, the said judgment was
challenged by the State of Punjab before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
wherein it was held as under :-
"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 retirement. By a
notification/order dated 9th July, 1985 issued by
Government 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
claiming the benefits conferred by the notification dated
9th July, 1985. The High Court by the impugned judgment
dated 18th November, 1998 allowed the writ petition
directing the State of Punjab to pay all dues to the writ
10 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
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 & others v. Boota Singh & others, Civil
Appeal No. 10674 of 1996, decided on 7th August, 1997. In
this decision, it has been noticed that in Dr. Asa Singh's
case, after the dismissal of the special leave petition on
13th May, 1993, the State Government sought to reopen the
matter by filing an interlocutory application before the
High Court for clarification. The clarification application
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
re-agitated 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 governed by different
rules. They are governed by the old rules, i.e., the rules
prevalent at the time when they retired. 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
11 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
conferment of additional benefits cannot be considered
arbitrary. It was further held that :
"In the case of Indian Ex-services League & others
v. Union of India, reported in 1991(1) SCR (158 :
1991(1) S.C.T. 468) 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 v. Union of India, 1997(4) Scale 384:
1997(3) S.C.T. 478 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."
12 of 13
CWP-5070-2020 (O&M) and
11. To the same effect is the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and others :
2005(3) SCT 770.
12. In view of the above finding no merit in the instant
petitions, the same are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.
14.01.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
13 of 13
