- (1.) These writ petitions are being decided by a common order because identical issue of facts and questions of law require determination by this Court.
(2.) Civil Writ Petition No. 3902 of 1994 has been filed by Major M.P.S. Bhullar (Retd.) with the prayer that order (Annexure P-9) dated 16.3.1994 be quashed and the respondents be restrained from reducing his pay and allowances and also from making any recovery from his salary. Another prayer made by the petitioner is for striking down of Note No. 3 contained in Annexure P-8 and that a declaration be granted that the option furnished by the petitioner has become redundant in view of the amendment made in instructions dated 23.1.1992. Major M.P.S. Bhullar has stated in his petition that he served the Indian Army as Commissioned Officer between August 1967 and August 31, 1989. During the course of military service, he was disabled. At the time of retirement he was drawing a basic pay amounting to Rs. 4,500/- which included his rank pay. After retirement from army he applied for recruitment as Administrative Officer in the service of the Punjab State Institute of Public Administration (for short, "the Institute") in response to 'an advertisement issued by the Institute. In the selection, he was found suitable and was placed at No. 1. Vide order Annexure P-1 dated 6.10.1990 issued by the Institute he was appointed as Administrative Officer in the scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500/- with initial basic pay of Rs. 3,500/- plus usual allowances. Immediately after his appointment as Administrative Officer in the service of the Institute, the Director wrote a letter (Annexure P-2) dated 26.10.1990 to the Defence Pension Disbursement Officer, Amritsar not to pay the dearness allowance to the petitioner on his pension because D.A. was being paid to the petitioner on his salary. In response to the Director's communication, the bank from which the petitioner was getting his pension, informed the Director vide letter (Annexure P-3) dated 5.7.1993 that the petitioner was not drawing any D.A./Relief with effect from 7.10.1990. After about four months' service the petitioner was sanctioned an additional sum of Rs. 100/- per month as special pay on the recommendations Of the Senior Consultant of the Institute. After about two years and three months of petitioner's appointment, order (Annexure P-9) dated 16.3.1994 came to be issued by the Director of the Institute fixing the petitioner's pay at Rs. 3,000/- with effect from 1.2.1992 with a further stipulation that element of D.A. being received by the petitioner on his pension will be deducted. Petitioner has enclosed statement (Annexure P-10) to show as to how his emoluments will be drastically reduced on account of implementation of order, Annexure P-9. According to them he is in receipt of Rs. 9,022/- in all and would receive Rs. 6,449/- in case ' annexure P-9 is implemented. He made representation to the authorities on the Institute but without any favourable result. This is the reason why the petitioner has sought the intervention of this Court for quashing the impugned order and for grant of appropriate declaratory relief.
(3.) Petitioner has made reference to various circulars issued by the Government of India. One of such circulars is annexure P-4 dated 26.3.1984. The other one is dated 5.12.1990 (Annexure P-5). On January 23, 1992 Government of India issued Annexure P-7 for fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners. Lastly, Annexure P-8 dated 20.1.1993 has been issued whereby it has been clarified that on re-employment the ex-servicemen will draw dearness allowance admissible on pension along with his pension and the amount of dearness allowance so drawn by him will be deducted from the dearness allowance admissible to him on the salary payable to him on the re-employed post. Petitioner's contention is that by applying the instructions contained in Annexure P-8 with retrospective effect, the respondents have made an attempt to reduce his emoluments but before doing so no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and even though, he did not draw dearness allowance/dearness relief which the petitioner would have received as a pensioner is sought to be deducted from his emoluments.;