9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone s discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. It will be appropriate and apposite on the part of the employers to remember the same and ingeminate it time and again so that unnecessary litigation do not travel to the Court and the employers show a definite and correct attitude towards employees. We are compelled to say so as we find that the intention of the State Government from paragraph 5 of the circular/memorandum has been litigated at various stages to deny the benefits to the Respondents. It is the duty of the State Government to avoid unwarranted litigations and not to encourage any litigation for the sake of litigation. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e), Lecturer (Senior Scale) and Lecturer (Selection Scale) showing the existing revised pay scale as against the said post, as a result of which the Respondents who retired prior to the year 1996 or for that matter in the year 1999 were granted revised pension on the basis of the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 meant for the grade of Lecturer (Selection Scale). 4. In the year 2008, the Government of Rajasthan issued a circular/memorandum dated 12.09.2008, which envisaged that the pension/family pension of all the pre 1.9.2006 State pensioners/family pensioners be revised w.e.f. 1.9.2006 as per the provisions made therein. Paragraph 3 of the said Circular/Memorandum provides the dictionary clause, which reads as under: (a) 'Existing Pensioner' or 'Existing Family Pensioner' means a pensioner who was drawing/entitled to pension/family pension as on 31.08.2006. (b) 'Existing Pension' means the basic pension/consolidated pension inclusive of commuted portion, if any, due on 31.08.2006. (c) 'Existing Family Pension' means the basic family pension/consolidated family pension drawn on 31.08.2006. (d) 'Existing Dearness Relief means the dearnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eges on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for Selection/CAS Promotion. On behalf of the Respondents therein, reliance was placed on a communication dated 31.3.2010 issued by the Pension and Pensioners Family Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as the communication of the Government of India (Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of High Education) dated 15.12.2009 by which the Central Government had decided to extend the benefits of pay band of ₹ 37400-67000 to those who had completed three years of service in the pre-revised pay scale of 12000-420-18300 and the order dated 15.12.2009 was made applicable to those pensioners who were drawing pension/family pension on 1.1.2006 under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Another communication dated 1.7.2010 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development to the Secretary, UGC was also placed reliance upon. The Division Bench adverted to the submissions of the learned Advocate General for the State which was mainly focussed on the aspect that certain documents and guidelines were not filed before the learned Single Judge, as a conseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 1972. It could not have been made applicable ipso facto to the State Government employees. The decision taken by the Finance Department was unfortunately not brought to the notice of Single Bench which has now been submitted. All these aspects are also required to be considered by the Single Judge. 8. Being of this view, the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the writ Court to decide the matter afresh after considering the guidelines and various other aspects of the case. 9. After the remit, the learned Single Judge adverted to the rival submissions, considered the Regulations of 2010, paragraph 5 of the Memorandum dated 12.9.2008, Notification dated 12.10.2009, Letter dated 15.12.2009 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of HRD wherein it was clarified that pay band of ₹ 37400-67000 is to be given to all those who had already completed three years of service in selection grade prior to 1.1.2006 and, more specifically, the pensioners and on that analysis allowed the writ petitions. 10. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Single Judge, the State of Rajasthan and its functionaries prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay scales were to be taken note of in the revision of the pension; that the pay scale was revised pursuant to the Notification dated 12.10.2009, with effect from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2006; that it was clear that revision of pay scale would be at the minimum of 50% of the sum of the pay in running pay band plus grade pay so introduced from the year 2006; that the University Grants Commission Regulations of 2010 notified on 30.06.2010, with special reference to para Nos. 1.3, 6.3, 6.3.9, 6.4.0 to 6.4.8, were applicable to the Teachers, who were in active service; and that these Regulations did not have any retrospective effect. Thereafter the appellate Bench observed that notwithstanding anything contained in the Regulations of 2010, if any candidate was eligible for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'CAS') prior to 31.12.2008, the promotion under CAS would be as per Regulations of 2000, as amended from time to time, read with Notification and guidelines issued by the UGC from time to time. It further observed that the promotion in the selection scale could not be nullified, even if it was given prior to the Notification of 200 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting pay scale as on 01.01.2006 and onwards, subject to the guidelines issued in this regard. The University Grants Commission Regulations of 2010 could not be given retrospective effect and further these guidelines were not applicable to those, who were already placed in the Selection Scale. The Respondents, therefore, after the award of the pay scales applicable of Lecturer (Selection Scale), could not be treated in the lower pay scale as they had completed 3 years of service prior to 01.01.2006. They could not be artificially placed back into the Selection Scale which was applicable, to those who had not completed 3 years service in the existing pay in the Selection Scale as on 01.01.2006. 13. We have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India, on behalf of the Appellants and Ms. Shobha and Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 14. Learned Solicitor General has submitted that the order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana has no application in the present case inasmuch as the State of Haryana had adopted/incorporated the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission completely, which is not the case with State of Rajasthan; and more important ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents would be eligible for pension in terms of the pay band of ₹ 15,600-39,100 with AGP of ₹ 8000 and not ₹ 37,400-67,000 with AGP of ₹ 9000, for the Respondents who have been granted the lecturer (Selection Scale) have already completed more than 3 years of service in the said post. While refuting the submission of the Appellants that the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court is not applicable in the present case, the learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the rules are similar and the controversy raised before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and this Court are identical. In this regard, the counsel for the Respondents has relied on Clause 6 of the Haryana Revised Pension Rules which is identical to Paragraph 5 of the memorandum dated 12.09.2008. 17. To appreciate the controversy in proper perspective, we think it appropriate to compare in juxtaposition Rule 6(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part-I Rules, 2009 and paragraph 5(i) of the Memorandum dated 12.9.2008 and accordingly they are reproduced hereunder: 18. We are absolutely conscious that we had already reproduced paragraph 5(i) earlier but we have quoted it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. The approach of the Respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? 19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
