Single judge allowed the writ petition relying on the ratio of CWP 7446 of 2008 to quash a notification limiting pension benefits, subject to the outcome of a pending Supreme Court challenge.
Impugned notification dated 29.7.2003 quashed; pension restored in accordance with Circular dated 31.10.2006, subject to Supreme Court appeal outcome.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 12546 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 4, 2009
SHAM SAROOP
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing Notification dated 29.7.2003 (Annexure P-2). Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make Notification dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) applicable from 31.7.2003.
It has been brought out that the petitioner retired with effect from 31.1.2004 i.e. a period falling in between 31.7.2003 and 31.10.2006.
Civil Writ Petition No. 12546 of 2009
2
The petitioner has been put to a disadvantage in view of the impugned Notification, which provides less benefits in commutation of pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the matter is covered by judgment of this Court in CWP 7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab and another) decided on 30.3.2009.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State states that, indeed, the matter is covered.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed in the same terms as in CWP 7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab and another) decided on 30.3.2009, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
“It is not in dispute that the circular dated 29th July, 2003 impugned in this petition was also subject matter of challenge in CWP No.15554 of 2007. The said writ petition has been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide judgement dated July 21, 2008 and the following directions have been given:-
“After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed and our opinion is further strengthened by the ratio of law, laid down in V. Kasturi's case (supra) which has been followed by Hoshiar Singh's case (supra). The State cannot be permitted to create two categories of retirees by providing a cut off date as there is no rationale.
In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned circular dated 29.7.2003 and restore the pension of the petitioners, in accordance with the revised table, issued as per the Circular dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-6).”
The issue involved in this petitions is squarely covered
Civil Writ Petition No. 12546 of 2009
3
by the aforesaid judgement.
It has been brought to my notice that the aforesaid judgment is the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.25856 of 2008, which is still pending and vide interlocutory order dated 7.11.2008 contempt proceedings have been stayed. The issue being covered by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment all these petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment/ratio, referred to above. It is, however made clear that this order shall remain subject to the outcome of SLP and the petitioner shall be entitled to seek its implementation through contempt or otherwise only on the disposal of the SLP or in the event, the interlocutory order of staying the contempt proceedings is vacated by Hon'ble Supreme Court at any stage.”
November 4, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the Notification dated 29.7.2003 regarding pension commutation benefits is maintainable.
Whether the matter is covered by the ratio of the judgment in CWP 7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab).
Whether the impugned notification creating cut-off dates for retirees without rationale can be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶16
CWP 7446 of 2008 (Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab and another)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SHAM SAROOP
STATE OF PUNJAB
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
