- (1.) The petitioners are the retired Senior Deputy Advocate General/Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and they have filed the present writ petition against the respondents making a prayer that the action of the respondents in not counting the non-practising allowance (hereinafter called "NPA") for pension be quashed and directions be given to the respondents to take into consideration the NPA for the purpose of calculating pension admissible to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 was serving as Senior Deputy Advocate General Haryana and he had sought premature retirement and retired on 31.8.1981. Petitioner No.2 was serving as Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and he sought premature retirement and retired on 31.12.1981. Petitioner No. 3 retired as Assistant Advocate General on 31.1.1995 on attaining the age of superannuation. Before the retirement petitioner No. 1 was getting Rs. 700/- as NPA while petitioner No. 2 and 3 were getting Rs. 500/- as NPA. The NPA was being treated as special pay in view of Rule 2.52(b) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 1 Part I and pension was calculated after adding NPA with their basic pay. All the petitioners have been drawing pension on that basis since their retirement even after the revision of pension from time to time and the NPA used to be added as basic pay of the petitioners while calculating the pension. The Haryana Government in order to give relief decided to revise pension of its retirees and issued two instructions one dated 13.1.2000 in respect of pre- 1986 pensioners and another dated 18.1.2000 in respect of pre-1996 pensioners. In accordance with those instructions, the pensioners submitted their applications on the prescribed forms in the office of the Advocate General Haryana who included NPA in the basic pay of all the petitioners and then calculated the pension admissible to them but respondent No. 3 arbitrarily and without any sufficient cause excluded the NPA for the purposes of calculating pension of the petitioners and worked out the same merely on the basis of notional basic pay as a result of which the pension of the petitioners was reduced by Rs. 250/- in the case of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and Rs. 350/- in the case of petitioner No. 1. According to the petitioners, NPA was to be treated as special pay as it is a part of the basic pay and it has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get pension after inclusion of the NPA which is like a special pay and which is an integral part of the basic pay and the action of respondent No. 3 in ignoring NPA for the purpose of calculating pension is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
(2.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. According to the respondents, the petitioners retired on 31.8.1981, 31.12.1981 and 31.1.1995 respectively. At the time of their retirement while fixing pension, the NPA drawn by them was taken into account but while fixing the revised pension the same was not taken into account. The respondents took the stand that the instructions dated 13.1.2000 relate to the employees who retired prior to 1986 and the instructions dated 18.1.2000 relate to the employees who retired prior to 1.1.1996. The crux of the instructions dated 13.1.2000 is that while fixing pension in the case of employees who retired prior to 1.1.1986 their notional pension is to be fixed in the revised scale of 1986 and in case of petitioners No. 1 and 2 this was done and the revised notional pension was fixed in the 1986 scale wherein NPA was also taken into account. In the case of petitioner No. 3 since he retired on 31.1.1995 i.e. after 1986 scales were implemented, so while calculating pension his NPA was also taken into account. After coming into operation of 1996 scales, the State Government desired that the pre-1996 retirees should also be given certain benefits in their pension as obviously they were not benefited by he new scales. So in order to benefit them the State Government vide instructions dated 18.1.2000 issued directions that the minimum pension of pre-1996 retiree will not be less than 50% of the minimum of he pay scales introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for the post last held by the pensioner. In this view of the mater the inclusion of the NPA does not arise. With this defence, the respondents have made a prayer for the dismissal of the writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Shri H.S. Gill, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Vijay Dahiya, learned AAG, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.;