Harjit Singh Bedi, J.:— By this judgment we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 756, 824 of 1991 and Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8175, 8651, 10777, 10948, 11282, 18454 of 1991, 2744 and 6840 of 1992. The facts of the case have been taken from LPA No. 756 of 1991.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition in terms of the order of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6863 of 1986 (Shamsher Singh… v. The State Of Punjab….) dated 18th April, 1988: [reported in 1988 (2) SLR 408 (Pb.&Hry.)], by which the employees who had retired from service before 31st March, 1985, were held entitled to the grant of the same pensionary benefits that had been granted to those who had retired on or after that date. It has been conceded before us that the Letters Patent Appeal as well as the Special Leave Petition against that judgment have been dismissed.
3. At the time of hearing of the present writ petition, the counsel for the State tried to distinguish the judgment in Shamsher Singh's case and for that purpose relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Ex-Service League v. Union of India, 1991 (1) SLR 745 (SC). This matter was also considered by the learned Single Judge and having found that the cited case was not applicable to the present one, it was observed that the earlier position as reflected in Shamsher Singh's case still held the filed.
4. It has been vehemently argued by Mr. S.S Saron, learned Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the appellants that after the judgment in Shamsher Singh's case and also in the case cited above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has deviated from its earlier view and in furtherance of this argument, he has cited in addition, State of West Bengal v. Debdas Kumar, 1992 (7) SLR 735 (SC), Action Committee South Eastern Railway Pensioners v. The Union of India, 1991 (1) SLR 771 (SC) and Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : AIR 1990 SC 1782: [1990 (4) SLR 716 (SC)]. He has stated that this Court was therefore not bound to follow Shamsher Singh's Case and for this purpose relied upon State Of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, AIR 1963 SC 913. He has also urged that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was by a short order and it could not, therefore, be said that the judgment of the High Court had been approved as correct by that Court. He has further argued that, in any case, though pension might have been payable to the respondents, yet the gratuity and terminal benefits being a one time payment could not be reopened after the same had been received, as has been held by the Supreme Court in State Government Pensioners' Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1986) 3 SCC 501 : AIR 1986 SC 1907. He has finally urged that admittedly after 1.1.1986 all the retirees had been put at par but the financial liability as a result of this Court's judgment was over rupees one crore and in support of this argument, he has filed an affidavit during the course of arguments before us.
5. Mr. LP. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has, however, argued that though strictly speaking the judgment of the High Court could not be said to have been endorsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court yet judicial propriety and discipline required that the earlier precedent by followed. He has also pointed out that before the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition the present appellants had relied on the judgment in Indian Ex-Services Leagues' case (supra) and after the dismissal of the SLP had filed a review application in which once again pointed attention was focussed Page: 231on the aforesaid judgment and that the review application too was nevertheless dismissed. He has urged that in view of these facts, the Supreme Court had gone into the merits of the judgment in Shamsher Singh's case and found in the light of that judgment that it did not help their case. In this connection he has also referred to J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1990) 1 SCC 288 : AIR 1990 Supreme Court 535: [1991 (3) SLR 86 (SC)] that although a speaking order might not have been passed by the Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition as also the review application Filed thereafter, yet this Court would not interfere.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the appeals. Assuming for a moment that the judgment cited in Joginder Singh's case (supra) does entitle us to go into the merits of the present controversy in the light of the later judgments of the Supreme Court, we are, however, not inclined to do so as no new principle is discernible from those judgments and they are, in any case, distinguishable on facts. As a matter of fact the judgment in J. Ranga Swamy's case (supra) virtually covers the case against the appellants. In that case the Special Leave Petition as also a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court impugning certain actions of the Government. The SLP as well as the writ petition were dismissed which led to the filing of a review application against the aforesaid order. These review applications were also dismissed through without giving reasons. The petitioners thereafter moved another set of review applications against the same order but these too were dismissed with the observations quoted, below,
“All the points which the petitioner urged regarding the constitutionality of the Government orders in question as well as the appointment of respondent instead of petitioner to the post in question had been urged before the Bench which heard the civil appeal and writ petitions originally. The petitioner himself stated that he was heard by the Bench at some length. It is, therefore, clear that the matters were disposed of after a consideration of all the points urged by the petitioner and the mere fact that the order does not discuss the contentions or give reasons cannot entitle the petitioners to have what is virtually a second review.”
7. In the light of the above observations, we are of the view that the Special Leave Petition as also the Review application filed in the Supreme Court having been dismissed, it would be most improper for us to judge the correctness of the Shamsher Singh's case in these proceedings.
8. We have also examined the arguments of Mr. Saron that the gratuity and terminal benefits which the respondents had already received on their retirement was only a one time benefit and no enhancement could be claimed on their revision. This argument too was considered by the Supreme Court while disposing of the SLP and the Review Application.
9. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the appeals and the same for dismissed whereas the writ petitions mentioned above are allowed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
10. Appeal dismissed.