http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: D.L. UPPAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1660            1996 SCC  (2) 344  JT 1996 (2)   408        1996 SCALE  (1)812

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted;        We  have heard counsel on both sides. This  appeal by special leave  arises from  the order of the  Division Bench of the  Punjab &  Haryana High Court made  in C.W.P. No.8687 of 1994  on July  25, 1994.  The   respondent had retired on January 31,  1994 and  he claimed  his pension and since his pension has  not been  paid, he  invoked the jurisdiction of the High  Court. In  the impugned  order, the High Court has directed to  pay to  the respondent  the gratuity  with  12% interest thereon within one month from the date of judgment. It  further   directed  to  determine  the  pension  of  the respondent on  the basis of the emoluments last drawn by him which would  be subject  to the  final decision  that may be made in  regard to  the actual  scale of  pay to which he is eligible and  on the basis of which pension may be computed. Arrears paid  would be  adjustable thereafter.  Accordingly, direction was  given to pay the pension with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      We issued  notice only  to see that when the dispute as regards the  computation of  pension  is  pending,  how  the liability could  be fastened  with interest for non-fixation of the  pension. Mr. Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearing for  the   respondent  has   stated  that  the  respondent’s entitlement is  to be  computed on  the basis  of last drawn scale of  pay as  found by  the High  Court which  would  be adjusted after the fixation of pay. According to the learned counsel, even fixation of pay has been correctly done. There fore, there  is  inaction  on  the  part  of  the  State  in computing  the   pension  payable   to  the  respondent.  He further contends  that persons  similarly situated are being paid  pension   while  the  same  is  being  denied  to  the respondent. It is contended by the appellants that the scale of pay  was provisionally  fixed and  this is  matter  under consideration. Until  it is  decided, the State is unable to

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

determine the pension payable to the respondent. Under these circumstances, there  is no  slackness on  the part  of  the State in determining the pension payable to the respondent.      Having considered the respective contentions, we are of the view  that the High Court’s view is not correct. So long as the  scale of pay to which the respondent is entitled has not been determined, necessarily the State Government cannot fix the  pension and that is the matter now pending decision in the  High Court.  No doubt,  specifically no reference is made to  the respondent  before fixing  the scale of pay and the action of the other subordinates has been impugned by the State.      Under these  circumstances, the order of the High Court is reversed.  The appellants  are directed  to  compute  the pension on  the undisputed  scale of  pay and  pay the  same within a  period of two months from the date of decision. It would be  subject to  the decision in the pending cases. The State is  directed to  decide within six weeks from the date of receipt  of a  copy of  this order.  The  State  is  also directed to  release the  gratuity payable to the respondent within four weeks from today.      The appeal is allowed. No costs.