Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gurdial Singh vs The State Of H.P. And Others on 21 December, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 131 of 2020
.
with CWP No. 266 of 2019.
Date of decision: 21.12.2022.
1. Execution Petition No. 131 of 2020.
Gurdial Singh .....Applicant.
Versus
The State of H.P. and others .....Respondents.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Ram Sharma,
Advocate.
Sh. Ajmer Singh son of Gurdial
Singh, SPA, present in
person.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with Mr. Shiv Pal
Manhans, Additional Advocate
General and Mr. Rajat
Chauhan, Law Officer, for
respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for
respondent No.3.
2. CWP No. 266 of 2019.
The State of H.P. and another .....Petitioners.
Versus
Gurdial and another .....Respondents.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with Mr. Shiv Pal
Manhans, Additional Advocate
General and Mr. Rajat
Chauhan, Law Officer.
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:34:08 :::CIS
2
For the Respondents : Mr. Devinder Kumar Sharma,
Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel,
for respondent No.1.
.
Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for
proforma respondent No.2.
Mr. Narain Singh, Asstt.
Accounts Officer and Mr.
Kamlesh, Sr. Acctt., A.G., H.P.,
Shimla, present in person.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The erstwhile Tribunal allowed the petition filed by the applicant and directed the official-respondents to re-fix the pension of the applicant on the basis of the pay fixed for the last month in service i.e. Rs.5,640/-. The erstwhile Tribunal further directed that arrears on account of re-fixation, as above, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the due date be also disbursed to the applicant within a period of three months.
2. However, when the order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal was not being implemented, the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:34:08 :::CIS 3 applicant filed the aforesaid Execution Petition No. 131 of 2020. Subsequently, even the official-respondents assailed .
the order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal by filing aforesaid CWP No. 266 of 2019 and the learned Principal Bench of this Court on 25.02.2019 passed the following order:-
"CMP No. 1137 of 2019Infructuous.
CWP No. 266/2019 and CMP No. 1138 of 2019 The first respondent retired from Police Department on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1996. It appears that pursuant to the Government decision taken in the year 1997, pay of the first respondent was revised retrospectively. He claimed consequential revision and re-fixation of his pension also keeping in view the fact that his average emoluments during the last ten months of his service before retirement stood increased. It further appears that the pension was not correctly revised by the Accountant General (A-E), H.P. on the basis of average emoluments drawn by the first respondent during the last ten months of his service. He, therefore, agitated the matter before the Tribunal and his claim has been eventually accepted. The first respondent was born on 6.06.1938 which means ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:34:08 :::CIS 4 that today he is 80 years old. Owing to the fact that he is an old retiree and a senior citizen we are .
not inclined to issue notice to him at this stage.
Let, however, notice of motion be issued to respondent No. 2-Accountant General (A-E), Himachal Pradesh to justify the manner in which revised pension of respondent No. 1 was fixed. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Meanwhile order passed by the Tribunal be given effect. Respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to assist the Court, if so desired and in that event, the High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to provide him free legal aid. Post the matter on 18th April, 2019.
Copy dasti."
3. Later, when the case came up for consideration on 20.06.2019, the following order came to be passed:-
"We have heard this matter for sometime. Affidavit in compliance, in terms of order dated 25.2.2019, has been filed by respondent No.2, however, not by the petitioner-State, respondents in the original application. Affidavit in compliance filed on behalf of respondent No.2 reveals that the petitioner No.2 herein was requested vide letter dated 21.5.2018 either to amend the existing Rules or relax the Rules in terms of Rule 88 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and thereafter send the pension case of respondent No.1-applicant for revision of pension to ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:34:08 :::CIS 5 the office of respondent No.2. The petitioner-State, however, has not responded to the correspondence .
made by respondent No.2. The petitioners-State even have been again requested by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 29.3.2019 to submit the case of respondent No.1-applicant for revision in accordance with order dated 12.1.2017 passed by learned Administrative Tribunal, in terms of the directions of this Court dated 25.2.2019. However, action by the petitioners-State is still stated to be awaited. We now direct the petitioners-State to implement the order passed by the Tribunal within four weeks and file affidavit in compliance as already directed on 25.2.2019. List on 20 th August, 2019."
4. Since, the parties were not able to arrive at any kind of settlement and the applicant has been questioning the action of the respondents in working out outstanding dues, whereas, the official-respondents were contending that the judgment passed by the erstwhile Tribunal has been fully complied with, then this Court on 14.12.2022 passed the following order:-
"Having heard the matter for sufficiently long time, prima-facie, we are of the view that the judgment passed by the learned erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal has been complied with in its letter and spirit. However, in order to satisfy the ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:34:08 :::CIS 6 petitioner, we deem it appropriate to direct the office of he Accountant General to render all .
necessary assistance so as to ensure that the pension, as due and admissible to the petitioner is being paid. Let the petitioner or his authorized representative and an officer from the office of the Accountant General to remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing. List on 21 st December, 2022."
5. Today, r the parties have sat together and reconciled the accounts and are ad idem that the calculations as made by the respondents are correct.
According to such calculations, there are certain amounts outstanding towards the applicant. However, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the official-respondents taking into account the advance age of the applicant, who is currently 85 years old.
6. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to dispose of these petitions by directing the official-respondents to pay the due pension to the applicant and at the same time restrain them from effecting any recoveries from the applicant. The future pension of the applicant shall be paid to the applicant on the basis of the re-fixation done by the ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:34:08 :::CIS 7 official-respondents and then recommended to the Office of the Accountant General. Ordered accordingly.
.
7. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Virender Singh) Judge 21st December, 2022.
(krt) ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2022 20:34:08 :::CIS