Punjab-Haryana High Court
M.S.Chawla And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 March, 2013
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Ritu Bahri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 12.3.2013
CWP No. 10554 of 2012
M.S.Chawla and ors ......Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab and ors .....Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: - Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Radhika Suri, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
.......
Petitioners are the former judicial officers in the State of Punjab. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been discriminated in the matter of grant of old age allowance with the other employees of the State Government. The prayer is for quashing of communication dated 21.3.2012 (Annexure P-10), whereby it has been ordered to effect recoveries of the excess payments made to the retired judicial officers who have drawn old age allowance on completion of 65 and 75 years of age at the rate of 5% and 10% respectively as in terms of Hon'ble Mr. Justice E- Padmanabhan Commission Report, the benefit of such allowance is admissible only on completion of 80 years of age.
It is argued that in terms of the earlier instructions dated 1.9.1989 issued by the State of Punjab, the old age allowance was allowed on attaining the age of 70 years and 80 years @ 5% to -2- 10% of the basic pension. The age for additional allowance was reduced vide circular dated 22.11.2001(Annexure P-1) to 65 and 75 years from the earlier age of 70 and 80 years. Subsequently, vide the circular dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-2), the pension of pre 1.1.2006 pensioners was rationalized and additional quantum of pension was contemplated to be payable @ 5% of the revised basic pension to the employees of the State in respect of pensioners between the age of 65 and 75 years, whereas 10% of the revised basic pension was granted to the petitioners in the age group of 75 to less than 80 years. The relevant extract from the said circular reads as under: -
Age of pensioner/family pensioner Additional quantum of pension/family pension From 65 years to less than 75 years 5 percent of revised basic pension/family pension From 75 years to less than 80 years 10 percent of revised basic pension/family pension From 80 years to less than 85 years 20 percent of revised basic pension/family pension xxx xxxx 100 years or more 100 percent of revised basic pension/family pension Such circular was subsequently revised on 22.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) by the State Government. The relevant extract from the circular 22.12.2011 reads as under: -
Age of pensioner/family pensioner Additional quantum of pension/family pension From 65 years to less than 70 years 5 percent of revised basic pension/family pension From 70 years to less than 75 years 10 percent of revised basic pension/family pension From 75 years to less than 80 years 15 percent of revised basic pension/family pension xxx xxxx -3- Age of pensioner/family pensioner Additional quantum of pension/family pension 100 years or more 100 percent of revised basic pension/family pension Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contend that after the order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in I.A. No. 244 in Writ Petition No. (C) No. 1022 of 1989, All India Judges Association & ors vs. Union of India and ors, approving the recommendations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan, the State Government has issued circular Annexure P-9 to grant additional pension to the former judicial officers but the benefits given by the State to all its employees cannot be denied to judicial officers only on account of acceptance of recommendation of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan. All employees of the State Government are to be treated at par with such additional benefits, such are to be granted in terms of recommendations of the commissions dealing with the service conditions of the judicial officers. Therefore, the petitioners shall be entitled to old age allowance/ additional Pension in the manner given to the other State Government employees vide the circulars dated 17.8.2009 and dated 22.12.2011, subject to the grant of additional pension to the former Judicial Officers who attained the age of 80 years or more in terms of the said circular Annexure P-9.
It is pointed out that the circular dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-9) was issued accepting the report of Hon'ble Mr. Justice E-Padmanabhan (Retired). As per the said circular, additional pension has been granted to the judicial officers after attaining the age of 80 years or above. Relevant Clauses are as under: -
-4-
(4) Additional pension/family pension.
Additional quantum of Pensioner/Family Pensioner after the age of 80 years to 100 years and above shall be as follows: -
Age of pensioner/family Additional quantum of pensioner pension/family pension From 80 years to less than 85 years 20% of revised basic pension/family pension From 85 years to less than 90 years 30% of revised basic pension/family pension From 90 years to less than 95 years 40% of revised basic pension/family pension From 95 years to less than 100 50% of revised basic years pension/family pension 100 years or more 100% of revised basic pension/family pension xxx xxx xxxx (9) For facility of reference, a Table showing the minimum of the pension/family pension in the revised pay scale as on 1.1.2006 is depicted in Annexure -A. (10) This issued with the concurrence of Finance Department given vide their I.D. Letter No. 1/43/2004-IFPPC/502 dated 21.4.2011 and I.D. Letter no. 1/43/2004-IFPPC/722, dated 20.6.2011".
On the other hand, Ms. Suri, learned State counsel has argued that the State has granted the benefits in terms of the directions of the report of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Padmanabhan and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any other benefits such as the benefits granted vide the circulars dated 17.8.2009 and 22.12.2011.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find that the stand of the State is not tenable in law. While issuing Annexure P-9 dated 15.12.2011 granting the benefits to the former Judicial Officers of the state, the earlier circular issued on 17.8.2009 or 22.12.2011 have not been superseded or modified. All the employees of the State Government have to be treated at par, as per the circulars dated 1.9.1989, 22.11.2001 as modified -5- on 17.8.2009 and 22.11.2011. The Judicial Officers are be treated at par with the other employees of the State Government in the matter of grant of pensionary benefits. The State cannot create classification in the matter of grant of pensionary benefits when the State has granted additional pension to all categories of employees. Similar view has been taken by this Court in CWP No. 14573 of 2011, Haryana Judges Association vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 7.2.2013, where the claim of cash in lieu of leave travel allowance was declined to the judicial officers in the States of Haryana. The Court observed as under:
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the action of the State Government is discriminatory, irrational and arbitrary. The benefit of cash payment in lieu of Leave Travel Concession is not envisaged in the report of the Shetty Commission. The action of the State in treating the judicial officers to deny the benefit of cash payment in creation of a class within the employees of the State Government. The order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association's case (supra), does not prohibit granting of any other benefit to the judicial officers in terms of the scheme framed by the State from time to time. The orders in the said case does not permit the State Government to deny the benefit which is conferred on the other employees of the State. All the employees of the State have to be treated at par in the matter of grant of benefits such as Leave Travel Concession which has been granted to all other employees of the State irrespective of their rank and status.
Consequently, we find that the Clause 4 of the Circular dated 28.12.2010, is wholly illegal and violative of the equality in the matter of benefits to the state employees.
Consequently, we find that the communication dated 21.3.2012 (Annexure P-10) declining the claim of the petitioners for the additional pension and consequent recovery is not sustainable. The same is set aside. As a consequence thereof, the Respondents shall recalculate the amount of -6- additional pension and disburse the same to the eligible former judicial officers in accordance with law.
Disposed of in the above terms.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) 12.3.2013 JUDGE preeti