- (1.) The petitioner had come to this Court for release of his retiral benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition, all his retiral benefits have been paid except the benefits on the basis of revised pay scale as per the recommendations of the 6 th pay commission. After considering the rival contentions, this Court had passed the following order on 1.12.2012: "This case is a glaring example of the State apathy being shown towards its retired employees. The petitioner had retired from the service as Clerk, Municipal Committee, Shahabad District Kurukshetra on attaining the age of superannuation. However, his retiral benefits were not released to him despite making a number of representations including the legal notice. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to personal grudge of respondent No.4 he was issued a charge-sheet dated 01.12.2009 illegally to which he submitted the reply and it is a matter of record that no charge was proved against him and he was exonerated vide order dated 07.12.2010. Not only this while exonerating him, Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra vide its order dated 07.12.2010 (Annexure P-7) has sanctioned his pension and other benefits for release. However, the petitioner was paid only a part of gratuity on 24.03.2011. Despite the aforesaid undisputed facts, the petitioner has not been released his pensionary benefits and has to knock the door of this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is a matter of record that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were released only during the pendency of this writ petition. Still it may be noticed that while releasing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, the revision in pension on account of grant of benefit of 3 rd Assured Career Progression was not made despite the fact that arrears on account of benefit of 3 rd ACP were paid to the petitioner along with other retiral benefits. Not only this, it was also pointed out before this Court that the other retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner on the basis of unrevised pay scale and the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission were also not taken into consideration. It is a matter of fact that the petitioner was granted benefit of revised pay scale on the basis of the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission. Noticing the aforesaid facts, this Court had vide order dated 07.11.2012 had directed the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing. In compliance of the order dated 07.11.2012, Mr. Sameer Pal Srow, Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana is present in Court. Additional affidavit has also been filed on his behalf. The aforesaid affidavit reads thus: "1. That as per Haryana Government Notification No.GSR/4 Const./Article 309/98 dated 07.01.1998, Sh. Satpal Sachdeva, Clerk was not entitled for 3 rd ACP. As such he is entitled for revision of pension on the old rates on the basis of emoluments drawn/to be drawn in the pre revised pay scale. As per Haryana Government notification No.GSR/ Const./Article 309/08 dated 30.12.2008, 3 rd ACP was granted to the petitioner in the new pay grade w.e.f. 01.01.2006 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra vide his letter No.3598- 3600/LFA, dated 21.07.2011 and accordingly arrears of pay amounting to Rs.37,302/- was released to the petitioner on 02.10.2011. Moreover, the difference of new pay scale arrears of leave encashment and gratuity amounting to Rs.36,993/- were also paid to the petitioner on 09.04.2012. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the benefit of revision of pension was also allowed to him w.e.f. 01.04.2012 as per decision of Govt. conveyed vide Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department memo No.4/52009-2CII dated 12.03.2010. True copy of above said letter dated 12.03.2010 is annexed as Annexure R-1. 2. That the Director, Local Audit Haryana, Chandigarh has also issued the necessary clarifications/directions vide their memo No.III(284)Pen/LAD/Tech./10/3966 dated 30.07.2010 that benefit of revision of pension is admissible to those employees of Urban Local Bodies/Improvement Trusts, who retired on or after 01.04.2010 as allowed by the Govt. vide letter dated 12.03.2010 and employees who retired from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010, are to be paid pension on the old rates on the basis of emoluments drawn/to be drawn in the Pre Revised Pay Scale. A copy of letter dated 30.07.2010 is annexed as Annexure R-2. 3. That retired employees of various Committees/ Councils/Corporations filed civil writ petitions praying therein to grant benefits of revision of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006, which have been allowed by the Hon'ble Court. The State government challenged the above said orders passed by Hon'ble Single Bench by filing LPA's, which have been now dismissed by the Double Bench of the Hon'ble Court. The matter for filing SLP against the orders passed in LPA's is under active consideration with the State Government. 4. That the deponent is only competent to sanction the pension as per provision of relevant rules instructions of the State Government and accordingly the pension case of the petitioner was received in the Directorate on 01.06.2011 and the pension was sanctioned on 10.06.2011 vide PPO No.5584. It is also pertinent to mention here that remaining retiral benefits have also been granted to the petitioner by the Authority concern. Hence, present writ petition deserved to be dismissed being infructuous. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be dismissed with cost in the interest of Justice."
(2.) It is not in dispute that the civil writ petitions filed by similarly situated employees have been allowed by this court against which LPA's also have been dismissed.
(3.) A perusal of the averment made would show that the benefits on the basis of recommendation of the 6 th Pay Commission for the purpose of revising the retiral benefits were denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the matter for filing SLP is under consideration. Admittedly, though there is no interim stay in favour of the respondent it has been pointed out before this Court by the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana that the total amount payable to the retirees of the State of Haryana is a huge amount having considerable financial constraint and thus, it is not possible for him to say anything with regard to payment of such benefits to the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondentauthorities is totally unreasonable and contemptuous.;