http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 8006  of  1999

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: J.L.GUPTA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/02/2000

BENCH: S.S.Ahamad, Y.K.Sabhawal

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J       (With  Civil  Appeal Nos.............of 2000  [Arising out  of SLP(C) Nos.11424, 12136, 12866, 13606, 16702, 17569, 18381, 8008, 8012 and 8017 of 1999])

     J U D G M E N T

     SABHARWAL J.

     Leave granted

     The ex-employees of State of Punjab are respondents in this  appeal  and  in the connected 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 sanctioned up to the consumers price level index no.568 will be  treated  as dearness 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 9th July,  1985.   The High  Court  by the impugned judgment dated  18th  November, 1998 allowed the writ petition directing the State 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 is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Dr.Asa Singh’s case.

     The  decision  in  the case of Dr.Asa Singh  has  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

considered  and explained in a later decision of this  Court (State  of  Punjab  & Ors.  V.  Boota Singh  &  Anr.,  Civil Appeal  No.10674  of 1996 decided on 7th August, 1997).   In this  decision, it has been noticed that in Dr.  Asa Singh’s case,  after the dismissal of the special leave petition  on 13th  May,  1993, the State Government 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  application  for clarification.  It was also noticed that the decision in Dr. Asa Singh’s case had no applicability and Boota Singh’s case could not be 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 not to any order passed  on clarification application.

     In  Boota Singh’s case it has also been held that  the benefit  conferred by the notification dated 9th July,  1985 can be claimed by those who retire after the date stipulated in  the notification and those who have retired prior to the stipulated   date  in  the   notification  are  governed  by different  rules.  They are governed by the old rules, i.e., the  rules prevalent at the time when they retire.  The  two categories  of  persons  are governed by different  sets  of rules.   They  cannot be equated.  The grant  of  additional benefit has financial implications and the specific date for the  conferment of additional benefits cannot be  considered arbitrary.   It  was  further held that:  "In  the  case  of Indian Ex-Services League & Ors.  Vs.  Union of India & Ors. Etc.   reported in (1991(1) SCR(158)this Court distinguished the decision in Nakara’s case (supra)and held that the ambit of  that  decision cannot be enlarged to cover all claim  by retirees  or a demand for an identical amount of pension  to every  retiree, irrespective of the date of retirement  even though  the  emoluments  for the purpose of  computation  of pension  be  different.  We need not cite  other  subsequent decisions   which   have     also   distinguished   Nakara’s case(supra).   The  latest decision is in the case  of  K.L. Rathee Vs.  Union of India & Ors.  (1997(4) Scale 384) where this  Court,  after referring to various judgments  of  this Court,  has held that Nakara’s case cannot be interpreted to mean that emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date  holding  the  same status, must be treated to  be  the same.   The  respondents are not entitled to claim  benefits which  became  available  at a much later date  to  retiring employees  by  reason  of changes in the rules  relating  to pensionary benefits."

     The  controversy  involved in the present  appeal  and connected  appeals  is  squarely covered  by  the  aforesaid decision.   The  respondents are thus not entitled to  claim benefits  under the notification dated 9th July, 1985  since the  said benefits became available on a much later date  to the retiring employees by reason of change in rules relating to  pensionary benefits.  In this view, the judgment of  the High Court cannot be sustained.

     Before  parting,  we place on record our deep  anguish for  the unavoidable litigation in this Court in the form of the  present  appeals  at  the  instance  of  the  State  of Punjab/appellants.   The decision in Boota Singh’s case  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

been  rendered  more than a year earlier than  the  impugned judgment  of the High Court.  It is a matter of regret  that Boota  Singh’s decision was not brought to the notice of the High Court with the result that the High Court, on the basis of  Dr.  Asa Singh’s case, allowed the writ petitions.   The explanation that Boota Singh’s decision was not reported and it  could  not be brought to the notice of the counsel  and, therefore, could not be cited before the High Court, shows a total  casual approach particularly when the State of Punjab itself  was  the  appellant in the said case.   Such  casual approach results in unnecessary litigation and waste of time besides incurring of unnecessary expense and waste of public money.   We can only express a hope that in future litigants such as State Governments would be more careful.

     For  the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeals,  set aside  the  judgment of the High Court and dismiss the  writ petitions.  The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.