LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND A.L\IR. versus JL. GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF PUNJAB AND A.l\IR. A v. JL. GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. FEBRUARY 16, 2000 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] B Service Law-Pensionary benefits-Government Notification gave higher benefits to employees from a specified date--R.espondents who retired prior to the specified date claimed similar benefits-High Court directed pay- ment of all dues on the basis of the notification-On appeal Held, benefits C became available on a much later date by reason of change ii1 the mies-Hence could not be given to those who retired prior to the date of the Notification. Respondents were the employees of the State of Punjab who retired before 31st March, 1985 and claimed higher pensionary benefits on the D basis a Government Notification which gave higher pensionary benefits to employees retiring on or after 31st March, 1985. The High Court directed payment ofall dues on the basis of the said Notification. Hence this appeal by the State Government. Allowing these appeals, this Court E HELD : 1. Respondents are not entitled to claim the benefits under the Government Notification since the said benefits offered in the Notifica- tion became available on a much later date to the retiring employees by reason of change in rule relating to pensionary benefits, while the respon· p dents retired much earlier. (905-H] State of Punjab v. Boota Singh, (21100) 3 SCC 733, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1129 of ~~~ G From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.98 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11933 of 1993. Jayshn:e Anand, Additional Advocate General (Punjab), H.S. Munjral, Rajiv Dutta, H.M. Singh, B. Kanta Rao, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Ms. H 903 904 SUPREME COURT RFPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R. A K. Sarada Devi, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, R.K. Kapoor, S.K. Srivastava, P. B Varma, Anis Ahmad Khan, I.P. Singh, Pankaj Kalra, Mahabir Singh, Ashok K. Mahajan, Vipin Gogia, Mrs. Jaspn:et Gogia, Rajiv Mehta, G. Sivabalamurugan, T.S. Arora, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha and Sumit Kumar, for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABHARWAL, J. Leave granted. The ex-employees of State of Punjab are respondents in this appeal C and in the connecttd 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 sanctiom:d up to the consumers price level index No. 568 will be D treated as dearnes~ 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 E 9th July, 1985. Tht: High Court by the impugned judgment dated 18th November, 1998 allowed the writ petition directing the Stat.: 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 in squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Dr. Asa Singh's case. F 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., Civil Appeal No. 10674of1996 decided on 7th August, 1997). In this decision, it has been noticed that in Dr. Asa Singh's case, after dismissal of the special level petition on 13th May, 1993, the State Govem- G ment 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 H application for clarification. It was also noticed that the decision in Dr. Asa ... STATEv. J.L. GUPTA[SABHARWAL,J.] 905 Singh's case had no applicability and Boota Singh's case could not be A 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 no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.