Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Satyapal Yadav And Another on 14 January, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No.1955 of 2012 [1]
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1955 of 2012
Date of decision:14.01.2013
State of Haryana and another ...Appellants
Versus
Satyapal Yadav and another ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. B.S.Rana, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate, for the respondents
in LPA No.1955 of 2012 and for the caveators
in LPA Nos.2172 of 2012 and 14 of 2013.
Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the caveators
in LPA Nos.2168 of 2012, 8 and 10 of 2013.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This order shall dispose of a batch of appeals bearing LPA Nos.1955, 2167, 2168, 2172 of 2012, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 14 of 2013, preferred by the State of Haryana against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.07.2012.
Undisputedly, the respondents retired from service prior to 01.01.2006; they were getting selection grade of `12000-18300 at that time; and completed more than three years of service in the selection grade prior to 01.01.2006. They claimed benefit of 50% minimum pension of the corresponding pay band of of `37400-67000+AGP `9000 of the pre- revised selection grade of Lecturers of `12000-18300 on the basis of LPA No.1955 of 2012 [2] **** Government of India letter dated 31.12.2008, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide its order under challenge.
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the letter dated 27.08.2009 issued by the State Government of Haryana is only applicable to those Lecturers who are presently working i.e. after 01.01.2006 as it pertains to selection grade Lecturers who had completed 3 years' service in the pay scale of `12000-18300 on 01.01.2006 i.e. on the date of revision of pay scale.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ caveators has referred to Rule 6 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 which provides that the revised entitlement of pension shall be subject to the provision that the revised entitlement of pension so worked out shall, in no case, be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band + grade pay in the corresponding revised scale in terms of Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, or as the case may be, Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2008, to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
The learned Single Judge, while referring to the aforesaid Rule, made the following observations:-
"Rule 6 of the Revised Pension Rules provides that the pensioner/family pensioner shall not be entitled to pension lower than 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band plus grade pay in the corresponding revised scale in terms of the Haryana Civil Services/Revised Pay Rules, 2008. This was clarified vide office LPA No.1955 of 2012 [3] **** memorandum dated 10.7.2009 wherein it was mentioned that the entitlement of pension would have no correlation with the subsequent upward revision of pay, if any, from the post from which the employee retired and it would be relatable only to the pay drawn in the admissible scale of corresponding pay at the time when the employee retired and pension was sanctioned. When this clarification is read along with the substantive rule and the scheme of pay revision, since the petitioners had completed more than 3 years of service in the selection grade prior to 1.1.2006, they were to be fixed in the Pay Band of `37400-67000/- as they were drawing selection grade of `12000-18300/- prior to their retirement. The clarification issued by the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana vide memorandum dated 7.9.2010 is, thus, against the decision taken by the Government of Haryana and in violation of the Pension Rules, 2009."
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are in full agreement with the aforesaid observations of the learned Single Judge and find no error in the impugned order by which the order passed by the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana dated 07.09.2010 has been quashed.
Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeals, the same are hereby dismissed.
(A.K.Sikri) (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
Chief Justice Judge
January 14, 2013
vinod*