2000 JTR(SC) 379
2000 AIR(SC) 3410 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 1875 ; 2000 96 FJR 499 ; 2000 85 FLR 16 ; 2000 2 JT 265 ; 2000 LIC 1978 ; 2000 2 LLJ 699 ; 2000 2 LLN 928 ; 2000 1 Scale 585 ; 2000 3 SCC 736 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 437 ; 2000 2 SCJ 145 ; 2000 1 SCR 903 ; 2000 2 SCT 8 ; 2000 3 SLJ 73 ; 2000 4 SLR 231 ; 2000 2 SLT 344 ; 2000 1 UJ 614 ; 2000 2 UPLBEC 1510 ; 2000 KHC 1097 ; 2000 2 Supreme 216
2000(2) Supreme 216
SUPRME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmed & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
State of Pubjab & Anr. -Appellants
versus
J.L. Gupta & Ors. etc. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 2000
(@ SLP (C) No. 8006 of 1999)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1133, 1134, 1136, 1135, 1138, 1137, 1139, 1130, 1131 and 1132 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11424, 12136, 12866, 13606, 16702, 17569, 18381, 8008, 8012 and 8017 of 1999)
Decided on 16-2-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Jayshree Anand, Additional Advocate General (Punjab), H.S. Munjral, Rajiv Dutta, H.M. Singh, B.K. Kanta Rao, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Ms. Naresh Eakshi, R.K. Kapoor, S.K. Srivastava, P. Varma, Anis Ahmad Khan, I.P. Singh, Pankaj Kalra, Mahabir Singh, Ashok K. Mahajan, Vipin Gogia, Mrs. Jaspreet Gogia, Rajiv Mehta, G. Sivabalamurugan, T.S. Arora, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Sumit Kumar, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.16
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory provisions under the Constitution of India, including Article 14 on equality and Article 16 on non-discrimination in public employment, frame the analysis of pensionary benefit regulations for ex-employees of the State of Punjab. The Service Law governs the calculation of pension benefits based on rules prevalent at the time of retirement, and the notification dated 9th July, 1985, sought to retrospectively treat ad hoc dearness allowances as dearness pay for employees retiring on or after 31st March, 1985. The impugned judgment relied on this notification to direct payment of additional dues, invoking principles of fairness and procedural fairness within the framework of service law and constitutional rights.
(B) Key legal principles include that retrospective application of pension-enhancing notifications is permissible only for employees retiring after the stipulated date in the notification, and not for those who retired earlier, as they remain governed by the rules in force at their time of retirement. The benefits conferred by a later notification cannot be claimed by retirees who were not covered at the time of their retirement, and such differentiation is not arbitrary but based on clear temporal classifications. Additionally, the doctrine of avoiding unnecessary litigation and the importance of citing authoritative precedents are emphasized to prevent wasteful litigation and ensure judicial efficiency.
Facts of the case:
The ex-employees of the State of Punjab, all retired before 31st March, 1985, filed a writ petition claiming pensionary benefits under a notification dated 9th July, 1985, which enhanced dearness allowances for employees retiring on or after that date. The High Court allowed their petition, directing payment of dues based on the notification, but the Supreme Court reviewed this in light of prior decisions.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the respondents were not entitled to the benefits of the 9th July, 1985 notification as it applied only to employees retiring after that date. The earlier retirement of the respondents placed them under different, pre-existing rules, and the High Courts judgment could not be sustained. The Court also expressed regret over the avoidable litigation arising from the States failure to cite a crucial prior decision.
Issues:
The primary issue is whether ex-employees who retired prior to a notification date can claim benefits under that notification retrospectively, and whether the High Court correctly applied the law in allowing such claims.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi is that pensionary benefits under a notification are confined to employees who retire after the notification date, and those retiring earlier are governed by the rules in force at their time of retirement, making them ineligible for such retrospective benefits.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the writ petitions are dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions under the Constitution of India, including Article 14 on equality and Article 16 on non-discrimination in public employment, frame the analysis of pensionary benefit regulations for ex-employees of the State of Punjab. The Service Law governs the calculation of pension benefits based on rules prevalent at the time of retirement, and the notification dated 9th July, 1985, sought to retrospectively treat ad hoc dearness allowances as dearness pay for employees retiring on or after 31st March, 1985. The impugned judgment relied on this notification to direct payment of additional dues, invoking principles of fairness and procedural fairness within the framework of service law and constitutional rights.
(B) Key legal principles include that retrospective application of pension-enhancing notifications is permissible only for employees retiring after the stipulated date in the notification, and not for those who retired earlier, as they remain governed by the rules in force at their time of retirement. The benefits conferred by a later notification cannot be claimed by retirees who were not covered at the time of their retirement, and such differentiation is not arbitrary but based on clear temporal classifications. Additionally, the doctrine of avoiding unnecessary litigation and the importance of citing authoritative precedents are emphasized to prevent wasteful litigation and ensure judicial efficiency.
Facts of the case:
The ex-employees of the State of Punjab, all retired before 31st March, 1985, filed a writ petition claiming pensionary benefits under a notification dated 9th July, 1985, which enhanced dearness allowances for employees retiring on or after that date. The High Court allowed their petition, directing payment of dues based on the notification, but the Supreme Court reviewed this in light of prior decisions.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the respondents were not entitled to the benefits of the 9th July, 1985 notification as it applied only to employees retiring after that date. The earlier retirement of the respondents placed them under different, pre-existing rules, and the High Courts judgment could not be sustained. The Court also expressed regret over the avoidable litigation arising from the States failure to cite a crucial prior decision.
Issues:
The primary issue is whether ex-employees who retired prior to a notification date can claim benefits under that notification retrospectively, and whether the High Court correctly applied the law in allowing such claims.
Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi is that pensionary benefits under a notification are confined to employees who retire after the notification date, and those retiring earlier are governed by the rules in force at their time of retirement, making them ineligible for such retrospective benefits.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, and the writ petitions are dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. The ex-employees of State of Punjab are respondents in this appeal and in the connected appeals. All of them retired from the service prior to 31st March, 1985. Their pensionary benefits were calculated as per the rules prevalent at the time of their retirement. By a notification/order dated 9th July, 1985 issued by Government of punjab, Department of Finance, it was inter alia decided that the dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance sanctioned up to the consumers price level index No. 568 will be treated as dearness pay for the purposes of pensionary benefits, i.e., for calculating pension, gratuity/DCRG, internal gratuity in respect of the employees retired on or after 31st March, 1985. Since the respondents were not given the benefit of the aforesaid notification, they filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming the benefits conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 18th November, 1998 allowed the writ petition directing the State of Punjab to pay all dues to the writ petitioners on the basis of the order dated 9th July, 1985 noticing that the question involved in the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Dr. Asa Singh s case.
3. The decision in the case of Dr. Asa Singh has been considered and explained in a later decision of this Court (State of Punjab & Ors. v. Boota Singh & Anr.1). In this decision, it has been noticed that in Dr. Asa Singh s case, after the dismissal of the special leave petition on 13th May, 1993, the State Government sought to reopen the matter by filing an interlocutory application before the High Court for clarification. The clarification application was dismissed by the High Court and the judgment of the High Court was upheld by this Court holding that since the main judgment had become final, the question could not be reagitated through mode of interlocutory application for clarification. It was also noticed that the decision in Dr. Asa Singh s case had no applicability and Boota Singh s case could not be decided in the same fashion as Dr. Asa Singh s case because the challenge in the appeal was to the main judgment of the High Court and not to any order passed on clarification application.
4. In Boota Singh s case it has also been held that the benefit conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985 can be claimed by those who retire after the date stipulated in the notification and those who have retired prior to the stipulated date in the notification are governed by different rules. They are governed by the old rules, i.e., the rules prevalent at the time when they retire. The two categories of persons are governed by different sets of rules. They cannot be equated. The grant of additional benefit has financial implications and the specific date for the conferment of additional benefits cannot be considered arbitrary. It was further held that :
"In the case of Indian Ex-Services League & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc. reported in (1991(1) SCR 158) this Court distinguished the decision in Nakara s case (supra) and held that the ambit of that decision cannot be enlarged to cover all claim by retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree, irrespective of the date of retirement even though the emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension be different. We need not cite other subsequent decisions which have also distinguished Nakara s case (supra). The latest decision is in the case of K.L. Rathee v. Union of India & Ors. (1997(4) Scale 384) where this Court, after referring to various judgments of this Court, has held that Nakara s case cannot be interpreted to mean that emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. The respondents are not entitled to claim benefits which became available at a much later date to retiring employees by reason of changes in the rules relating to pensionary benefits."
5. The controversy involved in the present appeal and connected appeals is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. The respondents are thus not entitled to claim benefits under the notification dated 9th July, 1985 since the said benefits became available on a much later date to the retiring employees by reason of change in rules relating to pensionary benefits. In this view, the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.
6. Before parting, we place on record our deep anguish for the unavoidable litigation in this Court in this form of the present appeals at the instance of the State of Punjab/appellants. The decision in Boota Singh s case had been rendered more than a year earlier than the impugned judgment of the High Court. It is a matter of regret that Boota Singh s decision was not brought to the notice of the High Court with the result that the High Court, on the basis or Dr. Asa Singh s case, allowed the writ petitions. The explanation that Boota Singh s decision was not reported and it could not be brought to the notice of the counsel and, therefore, could not be cited before the High Court, shows a total casual approach particularly when the State of Punjab itself was the appellant in the said case. Such casual approach results in unnecessary litigation and waste of time besides incurring of unnecessary expense and waste of public money. We can only express a hope that in future litigants such as State Governemnts would be more careful.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the wirt petitions. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
(C.R.) Appeals allowed.
*************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of Punjab v. J.L. Gupta & Ors. etc. etc., 2000(2) Supreme 216
00032
00033