LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus GIAN CHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012) 11 S.C.R. 1100 STATE OF PUNJAB v. GIAN CHAND & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9007 of 2012 etc.) DECEMBER 13, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Service Law - Pension - Commutation - Table for calculation of commutation substituted by a Circular - C Affecting the employees of Punjab State Electricity Board retiring between 31-7-2003 and 31-10-2006 - Writ petition by the employees retiring between the above period contending that the Circular was to their disadvantage - High Court allowing the petitions - On appeal, new plea raised by State D that Circular was issued due to financial crunch and that under the Rules, the respondents-employees had option to withdraw the request of commutation - Held: New pleas are not permissible to be raised for the first time before Supreme Court - But the new questions raised are substantial legal E questions and are having far reaching consequences and hence require discussion and determination by the Court - The impugned judgment also lacks proper reasoning - Therefore, matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law - Cost of Rs. 50, 0001- to be paid to F respondent Nos. 1 to 26 in equal proportion - Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II - r. 11.5(1), Note 2 - Practice and Procedure - New Plea - Permissibility. Practice and Procedure - New Plea - Raised before Supreme Court - Permissibility - Held: Not permissible - G Determination of new plea may deprive either of the parties of a right to appeal to Supreme Court - Such deprivation can be construed as prejudicial to the rights and interest of the parties. H ' ' 1100 STATE OF PUNJAB v. GIAN CHAND & ORS. 1101 Punjab State Electricity Board had adopted the A P.ules pertaining to pension contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II for its employees. Table of commutation of pension was provided in terms of Rule 11.5(2) of the Civil Services Rules. Appellant-State issued a Circular dated 29.7.2003, whereby the existing table was B replaced with a new table for calculation of commutation of pension and was applicable to all the cases of retirement arising on or after 31. 7 .2003. However, by a further Circular dated 31.10.2006, the previous circular was superseded, revising the existing table of c commutation of pensions. The employees-respondents who retired between 31.7.2003 and 30.10.2006 filed writ petition, challenging the Circular dated 29.7.2003 contending that the table of calculation of commutation of pensions, provided by that D Circular was to their disadvantage. They pleaded that it was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. High Court allowed the petition. In appeal to this court, appellant-State inter-alia E contended that the State issued the Circular dated 29.7.2003, as the State was suffering from serious financial crunch and that the respondents had choice to withdraw the request of commutation under Note 2 to Rule 11.5 (1). F The respondents contended that all the pleas raised before this court by the appellant was raised for the fist time and taking new grounds for the first time before Supreme Court could not be permitted. Partly allowing C.A. Nos. 9007, 9010, 9011, 1912, 9013, 9014, 9015, 9016 and 9019 of 2012 and remitting them to High Court and directing to detach the C.A.Nos. 9008-9009/2012, 9017/2012 and 9018/2012 from the other appeals, the Court G H 1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. From the record, it is clear that the substantial pleas are being sought to be raised before this Court for the first time. From the orders passed by this Court, it is clear that white granting liberty to the State to file additional affidavit, no objection was raised by the B respondents. Now, once the additional facts and grounds had been brought on record to which the said respondents have already filed a rejoinder, they cannot be permitted to raise the objection in regard to the new grounds being examined by the Court. There are c certainly lapses on the part of the State, but the questions raised before this Court are not only substantial legal questions but are also likely to have far reaching consequences. It is argued that the Circular dated 29th July, 2003 has been issued by the State of Punjab and 0 the same having been quashed, there is every likelihood that all the employees of the State of Punjab, including various corporations, would raise simil
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.