BHAGAT RAM SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1034 · Decided: 13-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHAGAT RAM SHARMA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS 
NOVEMBER 13, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Claim for pension-Under Regulation 8(3) of the Punjab State 
Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958 
1
c 
and proviso to sub-section ( 1) of section 6B of the Himachal Pradesh 4
Legislative Assembly (Allowances & Pension of Members) Act, 1971. 
~
The appellant was elected foom the Kangra district West General 
, 
Constituency, as a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly in the 
elections held in 1937 and 1946. By virtue of section 5 of the Punjab 
(Provincial Legislature) Order, 1947, he became a member of the Joint 
Punjab Legislative Assembly. He continued to be a member of the Joint 
D 
Punjab Legislative Assembly as he had contested election again after 
the Assembly was dissolved in June, 1951. On January 3, 1953, he was 
appointed a member of the Punjab State Public Service Commission 
and retired as such on January 2, 1959. 
The district of Kangra was transferred to the new State of Punjab 
.,,..., 
E formed under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, w.e.f. November 1, 
1956. Thereafter, the Kangra district was added to the Union Territory 
of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. November 1, 1%6. Himachal Pradesh was 
established as a State w.e.f. January 25, 1971, and the Kangra West 
General Constituency from which the appellant had been elected all 
F 
along, stood transferred to the State of Himachal Pradesh, and he was 1
deemed to have been elected to the Legislative Assembly of Himachal 
Pradesh-under the provisions of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 
1970. 
The appellant made representations both to the Chief Ministers of 
Punjab and H.imachal Pradesh for the grant of pensionary benefits to 
G 
him either as a member of the Punjab State Public Service Commission 
or as a member of the State Legislative Assembly. The State Govern-
ment Qf Punjab replied that the appellant could not be granted pension 
)-'-
as a retired member of the Punjab State Public Service Commission. 
The State government of Himachal Pradesh replied that the appellant 
was not eligible to pension under the provisions of the State ofHimachal 
H Pradesh Act. 
1034 
-
B.R. SHARMA v. U.0.1. 
1035 
The appellailt then moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
for relief by a Writ Petition. The High Court partly allowed the writ 
petition and ordained the State government of Punjab to pay a monthly 
pension (of Rs.400 to the appellant as a retired member of the Punjab 
State Public Service Commission, under Regulation 8(3) of the Punjab 
State Public Service Commission (conditions of service) Regulations, 
1958, with effect from August IO, 1972-the date when the said provi-
1' 
sion was introduced. The appellant's claim for pension w.e.f. January 
2, I95~he date of his retirement-was disallowed. His claim for 
pension as a member of the State Assembly under the provisions of the 
Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Allowances and Pension of 
Members) Act, 1971, was also disallowed on the ground that no part of 
A 
B 
. 
·, the cause of action against the State .or Himachal Pradesh arose within 
C 
the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana 
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant appealed to this 
Court by Special Leave against the order of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
D 
HELD: L It is extremely doubtful whether the appellant can 
claim pension as a member of the State Legislative Assembly from the 
State of Punjab in view of the constitutional changes brought about. 
The Kangra West General Constituency from which the appellant was 
elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly and later to the Joint Punjab 
Legislative Assembly, is by reason of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the E 
State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, deemed to be a constituency of 
the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The liability 
to pay pension to a member of the State Legislative As~embly elected 
from a constituency which now forms part of the Legislative Assembly 
of the Himacbal Pradesh, cannot possibly be saddled on the State of 
Punjab. [1043D-F] 
F 
2. As regards the liability of the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay 
pension to the appellant under section 6B (1), read with the second 
proviso, of the Himachal Pradesh Act, the High Court has rightly 
declined to grant relief as no part of the cause of action arose within its 
territorial jurisdiction under Ar

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.