- (1.) This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 665 and 666 of 2009 filed by the State of Punjab and its officers under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the view taken by the learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 07.01.2009. The basic dispute raised in these proceedings relates to the extent of revision of pension according to revised pay scale of the post of Examiner, Local Fund Accounts.
(2.) There is no dispute on facts that Mr. Ajaib Singh Kandhari (petitioner- respondent in LPA No. 665 of 2009) retired on 31.10.1986 from the post of Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, whereas Mr. Amrit Singh Chopra (petitioner- respondent in LPA No. 666 of 2009), retired on 30.09.1985. It has also not been disputed that their pension was fixed at 50% of the basic pay in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- plus Rs. 400 as special pay w.e.f. 01.01.1985. The pay scale of Punjab Government Employees were revised on the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and for the post of Examiner Local Fund Accounts, the new pay scale were fixed at Rs. 13,500-16800/- with a further stipulation that initial start would at Rs. 14300/-. It is obvious that the element of special pay was abolished. The appellant-State fixed the pension without considering the element of initial start of Rs. 14300/- and calculated the pension @ 50% of the basic pay treating the same in the pay scale of Rs. 13500-16800/-.
(3.) For the aforesaid purpose, the appellant-State placed reliance on the instructions dated 25.05.2005 and argued that expression 'minimum pay' of the pay scale has to be regarded as in the pay scale of Rs. 13500-16800. The learned Single Judge rejecting the aforesaid submission has opined that 50% basic pay cannot be regarded as Rs. 13500-16800 and the element of higher pay scale given at the initial start could not be ignored. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following para: "The dispute in the present writ petition is that the petitioner's revised pension has been fixed at 50 per cent of the basic pay of Rs. 13500/-, whereas he is claiming 50 per cent of the basic pay of Rs. 14300/-. This fact has not been disputed. It is also admitted position that even though the revised pay scale was of Rs. 13500-16800/-, but the initial start in the same pay scale was given at Rs. 14300/-. Had the petitioner been in service as on the date aforesaid, he would have drawn salary at the basic pay of Rs. 14300/- as the initial start. The Punjab Government vide letter dated 25.8.2005, Annexure R-1, issued instructions for payment of the pension/family pension to the Government employees, which reads as under: "In respect of Government employees retired from service between 1.1.1986 and 31.12.1995 the basic pension already consolidated w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of Finance Department letter No. 1/7/98-IFP III/8825, dated CWP No. 6993 of 2008 - 3- the 21st 1998/ 18th August, 1998 shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay scale introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for the post last held by the pensioner. However, the same may be reduced pro-rata where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rules in force at the time of retirement and in no case it will be less than Rs. 1310/- per month. The upper ceiling of pension consolidated under these orders will be 50% of the highest pay of Punjab as already clarified in above said communication." Under the aforesaid instructions, retired employees were entitled to 50 per cent of the minimum pay of the scale introduced with effect from 01.01.1996 of the post last held by them. Therefore, the thrust seems to be on the post held by the petitioner. Had the petitioner been in service on the date aforesaid, he would have definitely drawn basic pay of Rs. 14300/- as initial pay which is a minimum payable in the pay scale of Rs. 13500-16800/- introduced with effect from 01.01.1996. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to 50 per cent pension of the initial basic pay of Rs. 14300/- instead of Rs. 13500/-.";