CWP No.6963 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 24.02.2010 Krishna Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Sansar Chand Malik was working as Drawing Teacher in the Education Department in the State of Haryana. He was killed while going back to his house at Rohtak from the School on 22.07.2006. At the time of his death, the husband of the petitioner rendered about 29 years six months service. During the life time, the husband of the petitioner was honoured with State Award by the Government for his excellent services on 5.9.2005. Accordingly, he was granted two additional increments for a period of five years with effect from 05.09.2005 i.e. upto 4.9.2010 vide order dated 18.4.2006 (Annexure P-2). After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by taking the last pay drawn by the deceased at Rs.7425/- as on 1.1.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that while calculating the last pay drawn, the benefit of special increments has not been taken CWP No.6963 of 2009 2 into consideration. According to the petitioner, the last pay drawn of her husband should be Rs.7775/-. A copy of the letter dated 5.9.2005 conferring Award upon the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. The petitioner accordingly filed this petition seeking a direction for fixation of the family pension by taking into account the two additional increments awarded to her husband being State Awardee. The respondents in the reply filed have relied upon Rule 6.19 (c ) of the Civil Services Rules, Vol.-II and 2.44 (a) (i) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I, Part-I and have resisted the claim of the petitioner. It is sought to be projected in terms of the aforesaid rules that the additional increments will not count for the pay of the petitioner to be taken into consideration for grant of retiral/pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court in the cases of Radhe Krishan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, 1993 (1) S.C.T., 58 Considering the scope and ambit of the aforesaid two rules, this Court held as under:- “The provisions of the above rules have been interpreted by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1570 of 1989 decided on August 28, 1989. It has been held that Special Pay forms part of “pay” and “emoluments”. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the inclusion of an CWP No.6963 of 2009 3 amount of Rs.150/- per mensem which was granted to him by way of special pay towards his pay for the purpose of computation of his pension.” Reference has also been made to another judgment of this Court in the case of Wazir Singh Garg Vs. Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana and others, 2003 (2), S.C.T., 143 (CWP No.1965 of 1995 decided on 08.01.2003). In the aforesaid judgment, on consideration of the earlier judgment as also the judgment of Radhe Krishan's case (supra), following observations have been made:- “The counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2239 of 1991, Radhe Krishan Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, 1993 (1) SCT 58 (P&H) Recent Services Judgments, 540. in this authority, this Court has held that special pay forms part of pay and that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of special pay towards computation of pension. In this authority, the employee was working on deputation and the Court has held that the special pay has to be added in the last pay drawn towards calculation of his pensionary benefits. The decision in Radhe Krishan CWP No.6963 of 2009 4 Sharma's case (supra) squarely covers the case in hand.” In view of the dictum of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner's claim for merging additional increments in the last pay drawn for the purpose of payment of retiral benefits, cannot be denied to him. The issue raised in the writ petition is that the deceased husband of the petitioner was also entitled to the enhancement of retirement age by two years in view of the government instructions dated 24.04.1980. The aforesaid instructions reads as follows:- “Sanction of the Governor of Haryana is hereby accorded to the grant of two advance increments to the State Awardees from the date of grant of State Award for five years in addition to two years service benefits after the age of superannuation.” The status of the husband of the petitioner as a State Awardee has been admitted by the respondents. In view of the above said instructions, the deceased husband of the petitioner was also entitled to two years' extension in the age of superannuation. This fact shall also be taken into consideration by the State-respondents while determining the pensionary/retiral benefits/family pension payable to the husband of the petitioner. CWP No.6963 of 2009 5 In view of the above, present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to settle the pensionary benefits of the husband of the petitioner by taking into consideration two additional increments granted to him and extension in retirement age being a State Awardee and consequential benefits be paid accordingly to his wife-the present petitioner. 24.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES