In this civil revision, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing the trial court to ascertain proper pension calculations matching the appellate decree, which held the respondent entitled to pension from 01.01.1986.
Direction to the trial court to seek proper calculations as per the appellate decree for payment to the petitioner.
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.
1
C ivil Revision No.531 of 2003 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.531 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.12.2012
The State of Punjab and others
……Petitioners
Versus
Kashmir Singh
…….Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J.
The order dated 21.11.2002 passed by the Executing Court, dismissing the judgment debtor's objection petition, is under challenge.
The Sub Judge, IIIrd Class, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.1992 had passed the following decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent Kashmir Singh (hereinafter referred as ‘the respondent’):-
“In view of the discussion on issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled to pension, gratuity etc. from the due date, as are being granted to those employees who retired on or after 31.03.1985. I decree the suit of the plaintiff. However, there will be no order as to costs and no order as to interest.”
The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by
the first Appellate Court on 24.03.1995, while modifying the judgment and
2
C ivil Revision No.531 of 2003 (O&M)
decree dated 10.12.1992 to the extent that the respondent was not held entitled to the payment of the enhanced gratuity.
From the bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, it transpires that though the relief qua the enhanced gratuity was declined to the respndent, yet he was held entitled to recover the pension etc. from the due date, as were being granted those employees, who had retired on or after 31.03.1985.
The main grievance of the petitioners is that while computing the pension with effect from 01.01.1986, the pension admissible with reference to CPI 320 is to be taken into consideration. No interest and costs could be awarded to the respondent.
On perusal of the decree, it transpires that the respondent was not granted any interest and costs. The judgment passed by the trial Court merged in the Appellate Court judgment, which directed that the respondent would be entitled to pension at par with those employees, who had retired on or after 31.03.1985 and not prior thereto. Thus, the pension of the respondent was required to be fixed at par with those employees, who had retired on or after 31.03.1985.
Resultantly, this petition is disposed of with direction to the trial Court to seek proper calculations as per decree passed by the Appellate Court, for payment to the petitioner.
03.12.2012 ajp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court was directed to seek proper calculations of pension as per the appellate court decree before payment to the petitioner.
The State of Punjab and others
Kashmir Singh
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
