R. K. Mahaian J. - (1.) THE above writ petition was earlier come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. THE Division Bench vide its order, dated 24th March, 1988 allowed the petition directing the respon dents to pay the petitioners similar amount of pension including dearness allowance and family pension etc. admissible to State Government emplo yees or the employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur since July 2, 1981 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. In the order, it was clarified that the relief would not extend to payment of gratuity.
(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid order, SLP (Civil) No. 7917 of 1988 was pre ferred in the Supreme Court of India by the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order, dated August 9, 1988 disposed of the Special Leave Petition as well as the appeal remitting the matter back to the High Court for decision with the following observations : ".. ..Since the writ petitioners seeks to rely on the other conten tions also, the appropriate course to adopt after hearing both the sides appears to be to grant special leave and to remit the matter back to the High Court for a decision on the remaining points also after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. We accordingly grant special leave and remit the matter to the High Court for the aforesaid purpose. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. We direct the order passed by the High Court should not be given effect to till the matter is finally dis posed of by the High Court on all points subject to any other order that may be passed by this Court. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs." In this way, the above writ petition again came up for hearing before us. It is appropriate here to describe the main reliefs sought in the writ petition. Relief Nos. (i) and (iii) are the main relief, which are being quoted as under : "(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the claim of the petitioners for pay ment of dearness allowance to them in accordance with the scale of relief admissible to the State Government pensioners from time to time and that the same be paid to them with effect from July 2, 1981, as enforced by the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (iii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioners in accordance with the scale and dearness allowance admissible to the family of State Government employees retiring after July 1, 1979." The relevant facts, in brief, are these : Petitioner No. 1 Sri Moti Lal Agrawal, retired after completing 60 years of age on 12-8-1976 as Sahayak Nagar Adhikari, Allahabad and petitioner No. 2 Sri V. P. Kohli retired on 1-4-1970 after attaining the age of superannuation as Tax Superintendent. Both the petitioners are governed by U. P. Palika (Cen tralised) Services Rules, 1966 (for short Rules). Under Rule 3, petitioner No. 1 was as Sahayak Nagar Adhikari at serial No. 2 of U. P. Palika Administrative Superior Services whereas petitioner No. 2 was Office Superintendent in the U. P. Palika Ministerial Service. It was alleged that they were not getting similar amount as pension and gratuity including D.A. as was payable to the pensioners of State Government corresponding to the last amount of pay which was drawn by the petitioners. The U. P. Palika Centralised Services (Retirement) Benefit Rules, 1981 have been enacted but the benefits as permissible under Part I, Rule 4 dealing with calculation of pension and gratuity, were not being paid to them. It was further asserted that U. P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) 1977-78, made a recommendation that U. P. Palika Pensioners must get parity in pension. Medical facilities and other relief admissible to the employees of the State Government. The State Government took follow up actions and accepted the recommendations of U. P. Pay Commission (Local Bodies) and issued an order, dated 28-2-1984 recommending that the Palika should give the same relief to its pensioners including family pension etc. available to any Government servant drawing similar pay scale immediately before the date of retirement (vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition). The Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur made an amendment in its Pension Regulations to the effect that since 2-7-1981, whatever relief is provided to the State Government pen sioners as regards gratuity, D.A. and family pension, would be payable to the employees of Nagar Mahapalika Kanpur (vide Annexure 5) and there was no reason why should there be any discrimination between the employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad and that of Kanpur, when both were governed by the same enactment, namely, U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam (for short the Adhiniyam). The Pensionary Regulations and Dearness Allowance have been described illegal under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
(3.) SRI Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad urged that the Nagar Mahapalika did not have sufficient means for making payment of Dearness Allowance or family pension etc. as employees of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur have been getting. On account of lack of resources, there was inability of respondent No. 2 to pay the petitioners Dearness Allowance payable on the pension and family pension and other emoluments including gratuity etc. on equal level as U. P. Government employees or those of Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur are paid. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while remanding the case back to this Court.;