LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus D.L. UPPAL

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 19-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
D.L. VPPAL 
J ANV ARY 19, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Pe11sio11ary be11efit;~Payme11t of-Delay in-High Cowt orde1ing pay-
C me11t of gratuity and pensio11 011 the basis of emolume11ts last draw11-Subject 
to final decisio11 regarding scale of pay-Interest also allowed-Held : Si11ce 
matter regarding scale of pay pendi11g in High Cowt, State Govt. could not 
fix the pension-High Cowt's order regardi11g payme11t of gratuity and pension 
with interest reversed-State Govenunent directed to con1pute }Jension on the 
undisputed scale and pay the same within two months subject to the decision 
D in pending case;-Gratuity to be paid within four weeks. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil. Appeal No. 2856 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.94 of the Punjab & 
E Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 8687 of 1994. 
Ms. Nisha Bagchi for Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Appellants. 
Pankaj Kalra and Beldev Krishan for the Respondent. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave 
arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High 
G Court made iii C.W.P. No. 8687 of 1994 on July 25, 1994. The respondent 
had retired on January 31, 1994 and he claimed his pension and since his 
pension has not been paid, he invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. 
In the impugned order, the High Court has directed to pay to the respon-
dent the gratuity with 12% interest thereon within one month from the date 
of judgment. It further directed to determine the pension of the respondent 
H on the basis of the emoluments last drawn by him which would be subject 
818 
' 
l 
i 
STATEv. D.L. UPPAL 
819 
to the final decision that may be made in regard to the actual scale of pay A 
to which he is eligible and on the basis of which pension may be computed. 
Arrears paid would be adjustable thereafter. Accordingly, direction was 
given to pay the pension with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Thus, this 
appeal by special leave. 
We issued notice only to see that when the dispute as regards the B 
computation of pension is pending, how the liability could be fastened with 
interest for non-fixation of the pension. Mr. Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel 
appearing for the respondent has stated that the respondent's entitlement 
is to be computed on the basis of last drawn scale of pay as found by the 
High Court which would be adjusted after the fixation of pay. According C 
to the learned counsel, even fixation of pay has been correctly done. 
Therefore, there is inaction on the part of the State in computing the 
pension payable to the respondent. He further contends that persons 
similarly situated are being paid pension while the same is being denied to 
the respondent. It is contended by the appellants that the scale of pay was 
provisionally fixed and this is the matter under consideration. Until it is D 
decided, the State is unable to determine the pension payable to the 
respondent. Under these circumstances, there is no slackness on the part 
of the State in determining the pension payable to the respondent. 
Having considered the respective contentions, we are of the view that 
the High Court's view is not correct. So long as the scale of pay to which E 
the respondent is entitled has not been determined, necessarily the State 
Government cannot fix the pension and that is the matter now pending 
decision in the High Court. No doubt, specifically no reference is made to 
the respondent before fixing the scale of pay and the action of the other 
subordinates has been impugned by the State. 
Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court is reversed. 
The appellants are directed to compute the pension on the undisputed 
scale of pay and pay the same within a period of two months from the date 
F 
of decision. It would be subject to the decision in the pending cases. The 
State is directed to decide within six weeks from the date of receipt of a G 
copy of this order. The State is also directed to release the gratuity payable 
to the respondent within four weeks from today. 
The appeal is allowed. No costs. 
G.N. 
Appeal allowed.