Gurcharan Sandhu vs State Of Punjab & Ors

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-compute and release the revised pension of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 in terms of the recommendations of the 5th Punjab Pay Commission, along with consequential arrears and interest thereon, and further to release the benefits of the 7th Punjab Pay Commission from the date they became admissible i.e. 01.01.2006, besides any other order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner joined service as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector on 15.12.1961 and was subsequently promoted as Prosecuting Inspector in the year 1971. He was thereafter re-designated as Assistant District Attorney Grade-I and promoted as District Attorney in the year 1985. The petitioner ultimately retired from service on 31.03.1997 as District Attorney from Ferozepur.

Pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th Punjab Pay Commission, the Government of Punjab issued instructions dated 17.08.2009 regarding revision and consolidation of pension of pre-01.01.2006 pensioners with effect from 01.01.2006. The said instructions provided for consolidation of pension by taking into account the existing pension, admissible dearness pension/relief and fitment weightage, subject to the prescribed minimum fixation. The instructions were subsequently clarified vide communication dated 22.02.2010.

The petitioner states that his pension was required to be revised in terms of the aforesaid instructions. In this regard, respondent No.3 addressed a communication dated 11.12.2017 to the concerned bank indicating the revised pay scale and grade pay applicable for the purpose of revision of the petitioner's pension. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 07.06.2018 seeking release of the revised pension and the consequential arrears.

As the revised pension and arrears were not released, respondent No.3 addressed a further communication dated 27.09.2018 to respondent No.2 for taking necessary action in the matter. The petitioner has thereafter approached this Court seeking a direction for revision of his pension with effect from 01.01.2006, release of consequential arrears along with interest, and grant of the benefits of the 7th Punjab Pay Commission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a pre-01.01.2006 retiree, is entitled to revision of pension in terms of the Government instructions dated 17.08.2009, as modified on 22.02.2010, under which the revised pension cannot be lower than 50% of the initial pay in the revised pay structure corresponding to the post from which the employee had retired. It is contended that the initial pay is not static and any subsequent enhancement thereof, pursuant to correction/removal of a pay anomaly, has a corresponding effect upon the pension of a pre-01.01.2006 retiree.

Learned counsel further submits that the subsequent enhancement in the pay scale was occasioned by removal of an existing pay anomaly and was not a fresh grant of a higher pay scale. Therefore, the benefit flowing from the corrected pay structure could not be excluded while determining the pension merely on the ground that the revised pay scale was made operative for serving employees from a later date. The pensionary instructions being beneficial in nature are required to be implemented in a manner which advances, rather than defeats, the benefit intended for pre-01.01.2006 retirees.

It is further submitted that the respondents themselves, vide communication dated 11.12.2017, furnished the petitioner's revised pay-scale particulars to the pension-disbursing authority for the purpose of revision of his pension. Despite the same, the revised pension and consequential arrears have not been released. The petitioner thereafter approached the concerned authorities, but the matter remained unresolved.

Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to refixation of his pension on the basis of the revised initial pay applicable to the post from which he retired, along with consequential arrears and other admissible pensionary benefits, and that the respondents be directed to undertake the necessary exercise and release the resulting monetary benefits.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s pension revision case has already been processed by the concerned department. Respondent No.3 had forwarded the requisite documents and service book to the Accountant General for necessary action, pursuant to which the pension was revised and the District Treasury Officer, Ferozepur was intimated vide communication dated 27.12.2023 to release the arrears payable to the petitioner. Thus, no surviving grievance remains in the writ petition and the same has become infructuous.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that the office of the Accountant General is concerned only with authorisation of pensionary benefits upon receipt of a complete pension case from the Pension Sanctioning Authority. In the present case, the pension revision case earlier forwarded by respondent No.3 was returned on 18.03.2019 with certain observations, and the complete case was subsequently forwarded only on 27.10.2023. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has no pending action once the requisite case is complete and the matter has been duly processed.

It is further contended that the issue regarding implementation of the pension policy and determination of the applicable revised pay scale is within the domain of the concerned Department/Pension Disbursing Authority and does not pertain to the office of the Accountant General. The answering respondent, therefore, cannot be fastened with liability for the alleged non-payment of revised pension or arrears.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 3 submits that respondent No.1, Department of Finance, is the authority issuing the relevant pension instructions and no such instructions have been challenged in the present writ petition. It is further submitted that no cause of action presently survives against respondent No.1, while respondent No.3 has already taken the requisite steps for revision of the petitioner’s pension and forwarding of the complete record. On these premises, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court finds that the controversy is confined to the question as to whether the petitioner, who retired as District Attorney on 31.03.1997, is entitled to refixation of his pension on the basis of the revised pay structure applicable to the post held by him and to the consequential arrears arising therefrom. The instructions dated 17.08.2009, as subsequently clarified on 22.02.2010, specifically contemplate fixation of pension of pre-01.01.2006 retirees with reference to the initial pay in the revised pay structure, subject to the prescribed minimum. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be denied the benefit of the corresponding revision merely on account of his having retired prior to the subsequent revision of the pay scale.

The issue, in substance, is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in A.P. Sharma and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 25733 of 2012, decided on 22.10.2013, while examining the very scheme governing revision of pension of pre-01.01.2006 retirees, has held that pension under the aforesaid instructions is not static and that an enhancement in the initial pay of the post held by a retiree has a corresponding bearing upon his pension. It has further been held that a subsequent revision, though made effective prospectively for serving employees, can have a retroactive effect upon the pension of pre-01.01.2006 retirees where the governing pension instructions so provide.

In the case at hand, the respondents themselves have materially recognised the petitioner's entitlement. The Department, vide communication dated 11.12.2017, furnished to the pension-disbursing authority the petitioner's pay scale at the time of retirement as well as the revised pay scales applicable from 01.01.2006 and 01.12.2011 for the purpose of revision of his pension. The petitioner thereafter pursued the matter, while the record further shows that the pension case was initially returned with observations on 18.03.2019 and was eventually forwarded along with the requisite documents and service book on 27.10.2023. The subsequent communication dated 27.12.2023 directing release of the arrears after revision of pension leaves little scope for dispute with regard to the petitioner's entitlement. Thus, the objection that the petition has become infructuous cannot be accepted. The subsequent processing of the claim may have rendered the relief of revision academic to that extent, but it does not efface the petitioner's surviving claim towards the arrears and the interest for the period during which the amount remained withheld.

The contention that the delay occurred on account of movement of the pension papers between the concerned authorities also cannot come to the respondents' aid. In the considered view of this Court, an inter-departmental or procedural delay, particularly when no impediment in processing the petitioner's claim is attributable to him, cannot operate to the detriment of a retired employee so as to deprive him of the use of pensionary dues which had become payable. The Supreme Court in “State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair”, (1985) 1 SCC 429, has recognised that pension and gratuity are valuable retiral benefits and that an employee cannot be made to suffer on account of culpable delay in their disbursement. The principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case, where the record reflects that the petitioner's claim remained pending between the concerned authorities despite his having approached them for release of the revised pension and arrears.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of all consequential arrears arising from refixation of the petitioner's pension in accordance with the applicable revised pay structure, after carrying out necessary verification and adjustment, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the respective amount became due till the date of actual payment. The exercise shall be completed and the amount payable to the petitioner released within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.

Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.