Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Others on 31 December, 2018
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2710 of 2017.
Reserved on : 19th December, 2018.
.
Decided on : 31st December, 2018.
Rameshwar Sharma .....Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & others ....Respondents.
Coram:
r to The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner: Petitioner in person.
For Respondent No.1 and 4: Mr. Hemant Vaid, Mr. Desh Raj Addl. Advocates General with Mr. Vikrant Chandel and Mr. Y. S. Thakur, Dy. A.Gs.
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel.
For Respondent No.3: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Through, the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure P-12, and, of Annexure P-13.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2019 20:02:24 :::HCHP...2...
2. The afore annexures, comprise, the, pension .
payment orders, prepared by the authorities concerned, and hence, fix the pension disburseable to the petitioner. The afore prayer for quashing of the afore annexures, is, anvilled upon, Annexure P-8, (a) Annexure whereof is issued in pursuance to the directions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in IA No.339, and, in 336 in WP No. 1022/1989, the apt conspicuous underlined portion, of, the afore annexure, stands, extracted hereinafter:-
"5. Now, therefore, in compliance to directions dated 14.07.2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed n I.A. No.339 and 336 in WP No. 1022/1989, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to implement the order dated 08.10.2012 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in IA No.5 of 2009 in IA No.244 in writ petition (C) NO. 1022/1989 in respect of H.P. State Judicial Officers as under:-
(i) The Pensions of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Officers retired between the period 01.07.1996 to 31.12.2005 as fixed in terms of Government letter No. Fin (Pen) A(3)-4/2005 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2019 20:02:24 :::HCHP ...3...
dated 20th October 2005 will be revised by .
raising the same by 3.07 times, w.e.f.
01.01.2006.
Provided, above revised pension shall be subject to minimum of 50% of the revised pay scales applicable from 01.01.2006 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scales from which such pensioners had retired/died in harness."
(b) whereunder, a, peremptory diktat is enjoined, upon, the relevant authorities, to, vis-a-vis, the officers serving, in, the Himachal Pradesh judiciary, rather hence make the apt revision(s), in their pension, hence, by meteing deference, to, the coinage "by raising the same by 3.07 times, w.e.f.
01.01.2006". The trite conundrum which besets, this Court, for, its apt resting, is centered, upon, (c) a comparative reading of the afore underlined portion of Annexure P-8, vis-a-
vis, Annexure R-2, appended with the reply of the respondents, annexure whereof, is issued, vis-a-vis, all pensioners/family pensioners, in category whereof, the petitioner uncontrovertedly falls, (d) and, whereunder, in, the apt hereinafter extracted portion thereof, a, mandate is cast ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2019 20:02:24 :::HCHP ...4...
qua, vis-a-vis, the afore category of pensioners, the requisite .
calculations for hence fixing, their pensions, rather enjoining exclusion, of, merged dearness relief of 50%, reiteratedly, from, the apt calculations. The apt portion of Annexure R-2, annexure whereof, is, an office memorandum, issued on 14 th October, 2009, stands extracted hereinafter:-
"Where the existing pension in (I) above includes the effect of merger of 50% of dearness relief w.e.f. 01.04.2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be re-calculated after excluding the merged dearness relief of 50% from the pension."
3. Even though, the petitioner, has, contended with vigour before this Court (i) that the afore extracted portion, of, Annexure P-8, rather warranting, the, strictest absolute compliance therewith, (ii) given it being issued in consonance with the verdict pronounced, by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
However, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, his contention, is, both frail, and, feeble, given (a) the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as, directed to be put into force, through, the office memorandum, embodied in Annexure P-8, ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2019 20:02:24 :::HCHP ...5...
being rendered in the year 2012, (b) whereas, the afore .
extracted unfoldments, as, occur in Annexure R-2, being issued in the year 2009, hence visibly earlier therewith, (c) thereupon, the verdict pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and, as embodied in Annexure P-6/T, was, obviously required to make imperative disclosures, qua all the effect(s) thereof rather being borne in mind, by the Hon'ble Apex Court,(d) also echoings were, to, occur therein, qua the Hon'ble Apex Court also making directions, qua the apt hereinabove extracted portion, of Annexure R-2, neither being enjoined to be borne in mind, nor compliance therewith, being required to be meted by the authorities concerned, in theirs, drawing pension/pension payment orders, of judicial officers serving in the Himachal Pradesh judiciary, reiteratedly, emphasisngly, hence, in, the authorities rather recalculating, the, apposite pensionary benefits, in, compliance therewith. The effect of evident afore reticences therein, hence, constrains this Court to conclude, that, the all unfoldments borne in Annexure R-2 remaining alive, and, acquiring force, (i) and, the pension payment orders, as, prepared by the authorities concerned, ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2019 20:02:24 :::HCHP ...6...
and, as embodied in Annexure P-12 and P-13, rather standing .
validly drawn in consonance therewith, (ii) thereupon, to avoid rendition of a decision, in conflict therewith, and, also to preclude rendition, of a, decision per incuriam therewith,
(iii)the might of the apt portion extracted hereinabove of Annexure R-2, also acquires its relevant command, and, clout, and, as a corollary thereof, the impugned annexures, do not, warrant theirs being quashed and set aside.
4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Sureshwar Thakur) 31 December, 2018.
st Judge.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2019 20:02:24 :::HCHP