Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar Garg vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 December, 2013
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh
CWP No.16495 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16495 of 2013
Date of Decision: 10.12.2013
Pawan Kumar Garg
....petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
Mr.Mahesh Dheer, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 4
****
Hemant Gupta,J.
The petitioner is a former Judicial Officer of State of Punjab, who was appointed as Sub Judge on 08.12.1965 and attained superannuation on 31.08.1992.
The claim of the petitioner is for grant of additional pension on completion of 70, 75, 80 and 85 years in terms of the instructions dated 17.08.2009 as revised on 22.12.2011. The claim of the petitioner is also to grant one month's basic pension as travel concession on completion of block of two years in terms of the Government instructions dated 31.08.1989.
Verma Neenu2013.12.13 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16495 of 2013 2
The claim of the judicial officers in the State of Punjab for old age allowance was examined by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10554 of 2012 titled as "M.S.Chawla and others vs. State of Punjab and others" decided on 12.3.2013. This Court held that the distinction between the judicial officers and the other State Government employees is discriminatory. It was held that the judicial officers are entitled to the same benefits as are admissible and granted to the State Government employees. In addition to such benefits, the judicial officers are entitled to the benefits as are given to judicial officers in terms of Justice E.Padmanabhan Commission Recommendations.
In view of the said fact, the petitioner is entitled to old age allowance in terms of the judgment of this Court in M.S.Chawla's case (supra).
Mr.Bhalla, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has pointed out that the pensioners of the State were granted travel concession equivalent to one month's basic pension, vide circular dated 31.08.1989. Such benefit was extended to the family pensioners vide circular dated 11.08.2011 but such benefit has not been extended to the judicial officers consequent to acceptance of recommendations of Justice E.Padmanabhan Commission circulated on 15.12.2011. The said contention of the State is again not tenable for the reasons as recorded in M.S.Chawla's case (supra). Consequently, the benefit of one month's pension in lieu of leave travel concession to the judicial officers is discriminatory, the same being admissible to the State Government employees. Verma Neenu 2013.12.13 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.16495 of 2013 3
Consequently, we allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to grant old age allowance and travel concession in terms of the Government Instructions dated 31.08.1989 to the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. The respondent shall also restore the benefit of deductions made on account of such payment made earlier within the said period of three months.
The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Hemant Gupta)
Judge
10.12.2013
neenu (Fateh Deep Singh)
Judge
Verma Neenu
2013.12.13 16:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh