M.R Agnihotri, J.:— By my order dated 22nd April, 1991, C.W.P No. 12400 of 1990 was allowed as the same was squarely covered by the earlier judgment of this Court in C.W.P No. 6863 of 1986 (Shamsher Singh… v. The State Of Punjab….), 1988 (2) SLR 408 (Pb. & Hry.), dated 18th April, 1988. However, later on it was brought to my notice that service on the respondents had not been duly effected. For that reason, 1 recalled my earlier judgment and fresh notices were issued to the respondents for 3rd June, 1991.
2. Thereafter, when the respondents were duly served, written statement on behalf of the Accountant General (A & E), Union Territory, Chandigarh, was filed, along with a copy of the letter dated 7th June, 1990, from Shri R.N Gupta, I.A.S, Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Finance, advising the Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, that the petitioners who retired before 31st March, 1985, are to be allowed the benefit of treating D.A/A.D.A as D.P with effect from 31st March, 1985, and their pension revised with effect from 31st March, 1985.”
3. After going through the pleadings of the parties and having heard the learned counsel, I found that the view taken by me in my earlier judgment dated 22nd April, 1991, was in accordance with law and consistent with the view already taken by this Court in C.W.P No. 6863 of 1986 (Shamsher Singh's case-supra). Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed on 6th June, 1991, and the respondents were directed ‘to pay to the petitioners and all other similarly ‘situated persons, the same pensionary benefits in terms of the judgment of this court in Shamsher Singh v. The State of Punjab, C.W.P No. 6863 of 1986, 1988 (2) SLR 408 (Pb. & Hry.), decided on 18th April, 1988, within a period of three months, failing which the amount becoming due shall be payable with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum, from the date-of accrual.upto the date of actual payment thereof.
4. Against the aforesaid judgment, the respondents filed letters patent appeal which too was dismissed on 24th October, 1991. The matter was thereafter taken up by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(Civil) No. 19447 of 1991, but the same was dismissed on 10th March, 1992. The respondents again approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a review petition (No. 608 of 1992), but their Lordships did not find any merit in the review petition and the same was also dismissed on 27th August, 1992. The present contempt petition arises out of the non-implementation of the direction in Single Bench judgment dated 6th June, 1991, in C.W.P No. 12400 of 1990 as more than a year has elapsed and the direction issued by this Court has not been complied with so far.
5. Mr. S.K Pipat, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India, has very vehemently and ably projected the view point of the respondents that if the judgment is implemented in the manner the direction has been issued by this Court in the case of the petitioners in the present case, this might give rise to a number of similar writ petitions, thereby causing a lot of financial burden on the Exchequer; as while allowing the writ petition, the respondents had been directed to grant the necessary relief “to the petitioners and all other similarly situated persons”. Permission has also been granted to Mr. M.R Vaidya, Director, Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare, Government of India, who is present in the Court, to supplement the submissions made by his learned counsel, if still something more was required to be stated. Mr. Vaidya has only reiterated what the learned Senior Standing Counsel of the Union of India has already emphasised, that is, that the direction issued by this Court could not be implemented so far, mainly because its implementation would have served as a precedent for a number of other similarly situated persons.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records, I find that the plea made by the respondents in not implementing the directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 6th June, 1991, is not tenable in law. In any case, it would have been more appropriate and elegant for the Union of India to implement the judgment in the case of the petitioners who were only four in number, and if and when any subsequent petition was filed, the same could have been contested on merits, even if the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court and had assumed finality inter partes. However, as the respondents have been hotly contesting the litigation right upto the apex Court of the country even by filing a review petition before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I do not consider it a case in which any further action is to be initiated, except to reiterate the directions already issued in the earlier judgment dated 6th June, 1991, and-to direct the respondents to now implement the same within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. In order to expedite the implementation, the petitioners have furnished the following details of the pensionary benefits admissible to them under the rules:—
Amar Singh Man Singh 1st Gurbachan Singh Bandhu Pel. No. 1 Pet Nn. 2 Pet. No. 3 Date of retirement 30.4.1981 31.5.1981 31.10.1984 Pension calculated by A.G Rs. 1,101/- Rs. 662/- Rs. 897/- Punjab without treating DA as Pay i.e prior to the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 12400 of 1990. Pension admissible in terms of decision of this Court dated 6.6.1991 in CWP No. 12400 of 1990 i.e by treating DA as pay. Rs. 1,260/- Rs. 769/- Rs. 1,239/- Difference Rs. 159/- Rs. 107/- Rs. 342/- Note: Benefit of increased pension will accrue to the petitioners w.e.f 1.4.1985 Pension with effect from P.P.O No. CH-684 P.P.O 1.1.1986 dt. 4.8.1989 dt. 25.5.1988 i) As fixed by A.G Pb. under 50% formula with reference to para 5 of Govt. of India memo, dated 16.4.87 without treating DA as Pay before decision of CWP 1240C of 1990. Rs. 1,220/- Rs. 680/- Rs. 965/- ii) Consolidated pension with reference to Para 11.1(b) Annex. IV of Govt. of India Memo. dt. 16.4.1987 Rs. 2,196/- Rs. 1343/-Under para 4.1(B)] Rs. 1,641/- (Subsequently, the amount as wrongly reduced under Para 4.1(C) of the said memo, and recovery effected on 9.3.1989: Rs. 2,074/- (Recovery: Rs. 5178) Rs. 1,243/- (Recovery: Rs. 5178) — Pension admissible after treating D.A as D.P: i) Under 50% formula with reference to Para 5 of the G.O.I Memo dt. 16.4.87 Average emoluments: (As calculated by the High Court) Rs. 2835.50 × ½ = Rs. 1,418/- Rs. 1610 × ½ = Rs. 805/- Rs. 2783 × ½ = 1,392/- ii) Consolidated Pension: Rs. 2,553/- Rs. 1,468/- Rs. 2,367/- with ref. to Para 11.1(b) Annex. IV of G.O.I memo. dt. 16.4.1987 [Under Para 4.1(B)] Pension already commuted: Rs. 367/- Rs. 220/- Rs. 280/- Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity: Last drawn emoluments: As admissible under rule 68(5) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 Rs. 3,140/- × 66/4 = 51,810/- Rs. 1756.80 × 66/4 = 28,987.20 Rs. 2837/- × 66/4 = 46,800.50 or Rs. 50,000/- say being ceilling Rs. 28,987/- from 31.3.85 Already allowed by A.G Pb.: Rs. 30,000 Rs. 23,100 Rs. 31,645/- Now Due Rs. 20,000 Rs. 5,887/- Rs. 15,155/-
8. Consequently, the rule is discharged and the petition stands disposed of Rules discharged.
Comments