LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus MAHENDRANATH SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015) 8 S.C.R. 32 STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. v. MAHENDRANATHSHARMA (Civil Appeal No. 1123 of2015 etc.) JULY 01, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Pension - Family Pension - Revision of pension of the pre 1. 9. 2006 pensioners/family pensioners w.e.f. 1. 9. 2006 - By Circular/Memorandum <;fated 12. 9. 2008 - Claim for the benefit of revision by the respondent-employees who retired 0 prior to 1.1.2006 - Relief granted by courts below to the respondents - On appeal, held: The respondents were entitled to the revised pension in view of Para 5 of the Circular dated 12. 9. 2008 since all the respondents met the criteria for the same. E Litigation - Government litigation - It is duty of the court not to encourage unwanted litigation. Dismissing the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1. On scrutiny of Para 5 of the Circular dated 2.9.2008, it becomes clear that pension of a pre- 1.9.2006 pensioner shall not be lower than 50% of sum of the minimum of post in the running pay band plus grade pay introduced w.e.f. 1.9.2006 corresponding to G the pre-revised scale of the post. If the pay scale is taken into consideration, the corresponding pay revision would be Rs.37400-67000 with Rs.9000 AGP. The only qualifier is three years service in that scale. There is no scintilla of doubt that all the respondents meet that H 32 STATE OF RAJASTHANAND ORS. v. MAHENDRANATH 33 SHARMA criteria. The respondents were paid pension on a lower A band after the revision of the pay scale despite the fact that the persons who were already in service with the similar qualification have been kept in the higher pay band plus grade pay. [Paras 18 and 19] [47-D-F; 48-A-B] B 2. It is a well known principle that pension is not a bounty. The benefit is conferre~ upon an employee for his unblemished career. It will be appropriate and apposite on the part of the employers to remember the same and ingeminate it time and again so that C unnecessary litigation do not travel to the Court and the employers show a definite an"d correct attitude towards employees. [Paras 19 and, 20] [48-B; 49-D-E] . . 7' D.S. Nakara v. Union of/ndia~983 (2) SCR 165: (1983) o 1 sec 305 - relied on. . \. 3. It is the duty of the State Government to avoid 0 '~ ..... • unwarranted litigations and not to encourage any litigation for the sake of litigation. The respondents were E entitled to get the benefit of pension and the High Court has placed reliance on the decision of another. High Court which has already been approved by this Court. True it is, there is slight difference in the use of language in the Haryana Pension Rules 2009 and the circular/ F memorandum issued by the State of Rajasthan, but a critical analysis would show that the final consequence · u~u~ is not affected. [Para 20] [49-F-G] -•• F Case Law Reference 1983 (2) SCR 165 Relied on. ~ " ·.'.'Ir Para 19 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1123 of2015. • . . . .. . .. G H 34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 8 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2014 in B D.B. Civil Special Appeal-(Writ) No. 1059 of 2013 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. WITH Civil Appeal Nos.1124, 1126, 1127, 1129, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135 and 4908 of2015 Ranjit Kumar, SG, S. S. Shamshery, AAG, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Varun Punia, Sweta Rani, Ruchi Kohli for the C Appellants. D Shobha, Saransh Saini, Akanksha Kaushik, Raghav Pandey, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Pu ran Mal Saini, Anzu K. Varkey for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The respondents were working on different posts of Lecturers, Librarians and PTls, who retired E prior to 1.1.2006. It is not in dispute that all of them were appointed in different years from 1950 to 1976 and all of them retired between 1991 to 2004. It is also not in dispute that all of them had been granted Lecturers (Selection Scale) on or before 1.1.1986. Thus, all of them had completed three years F of service in the said pay-scale prior to 1.1.2006.Afterthe pay revision took place, on the basis of the recommendation of the 4lh Pay Commission, the respondents/ similarly situated employees got the benefit of revision of the pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 vide notification dated 3.6.1988. As per G the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales for Government College Teachers) Rules, 1988, (for sho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.