IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6225 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.11.2010 ________________________________________________________________ J.K. Panwar. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Lokinder Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate, vice counsel for respondent No. 3. V.K. Sharma, J (Oral). The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief vide para 7: “7 That the records of the case may be called for and after perusal of the same the respondent no. 3 may be directed to issue the revised P.P.O. In respect of the applicant by taking into account of his basic pay i.e., Rs. 3900/- which he was drawing at the time of retirement alongwith a special pay of Rs. 200/- with interest on the delayed payments W@ 18% per annum with all consequential benefits.” 2. In the reply, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... the following stand has been taken by way of preliminary submission: “That in the present case the applicant had worked in the office of Superintending Engineer, 4th Circle, HP, PWD Shimla-3 as Assistant Engineer (Design) w.e.f. 1.4.95 to 31.3.1996 and he was allowed the special pay of Rs. 200/-PM as per the Govt. orders no. Per (A-I)A(3)-3/84 dated 28.11.1990 (copy enclosed as Annexure-R-I) till his retirement i.e. on 31.3.1996. Accordingly, his pension case was prepared by the above Superintending Engineer and sent to Deputy Accountant General, Shimla vide his letter No. SE-IV-PF-J.K. Panwar/95-6776-79 dated 6.9.95 as Annexure-R-II attached by taking into account his basic of pay Rs. 3900+200 special pay.” 3. In the reply, filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, the following stand has been taken vide paras 3 and 6(i) to (vi): “3. The Pensionary benefits on revised Pay of rs. 3900/- has since been revised without taking into account Special Pay of Rs. 200/- as Special Pay does not qualify for revision of pensionary benefits in terms of Govt. of H.P. letter No. Fin-Pen-A-(3)1/96 Part-I dated 31.8.98. However, position of the case has been explained in detail in para 6 of the reply.” 6(i to vi) It is respectfully submitted that Pension case of the applicant who had retired from the Govt. Service w.e.f. 31/3/1996 on attaining the age of Superannuation was forwarded by the Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 6/9/1995. On scrutiny of the Service Book of the applicant it was noticed that the applicant remained on foreign service/deputation with the Municipal Corporation Shimla and Shimla Development Authority w.e.f. 18/5/77 to 30/6/1982 and 1-2-83 to 30/6/88 respectively. But entry regarding remittance of Leave Salary and Pension contribution was not recorded in the Service Book. Thus this period of 10 years 6 ...3... months and 13 days was excluded from the Gross Service of 35 years 1 month and 10 days. Accordingly, the case was processed and Certificate and Report authorising pensionary benefits on the basis of net qualifying service of 245 years 5 months (49 half monthly period) was issued vide letter dated 9/4/96 (Copy enclosed as Annexure R-1). A para to this effect (Sr. No. 15) was also communicated to the Respondent Department. Then on receipt of information from the Respondent Department, the pensionary benefits were revised from time to time. Last revision was made vide revised Certificate & report dated 27/9/99 (Copy enclosed as Annexure R-2). Thus, Pensionary benefits of the applicant on the revised pay of Rs. 3900/- (in the pre-revised scale) and Rs. 11,320/- (in the revised scale) has since been revised. However, Special Pay of Rs. 200/- P.M. has not been taken into account for revision of Pensionary benefits in terms of Govt. of H.P. letter No. Fin. Pen. A(3) 146-Part-I dated 31/8/98 (Para.12). Thus the contention of the applicant that the Replying Respondent had processed the case of the applicant in a casual manner is not tenable hence vehemently denied. In fact, on receipt of information from the Respondent Department from time to time, the case was finalised promptly. Legal Notice dated 26/9/99 was also suitably replied vide letter dated 1/11/99. Rest of the averments needs no submission.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by a judgment dated August 21, 1995, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 316 of 1995, titled K.K. Goel vs. State of H.P. and others and he being a similarly situate person is also entitled for grant of relief in the light of the said judgment, text whereof is as under: “The present dispute is regarding payment ...4... of full pension to the writ petitioner. The dispute relates to special pay of Rs. 300/- per month. While granting pension, the special pay was not taken into account by respondent-3. From the reply-affidavit filed by the State we find that this special pay of Rs. 300/- has to be taken into account towards pensionary benefit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We direct respondent-3 to re-calculate the pension of the petitioner taking into account the special pay of Rs. 300/- per month. This re-calculation shall be done within a period of one month from today and the order for balance payment shall be issued within fifteen days thereafter. Consequential other pensionary benefit shall also be granted within the above period. 5. It will be seen that though the claim set up by the petitioner is supported by respondents No. 1 and 2, the same is disputed on behalf of respondent No. 3, only on the ground mentioned in para 3 of its reply, as extracted hereinabove. However, the fact remains that this court in the case of K.K. Goel, supra decided vide judgment dated August 21, 1995, referred to hereinabove, while repelling a similar contention, has granted the benefit of counting of Special Pay for the purpose of pension and since the petitioner is also a similarly situate person is fully covered under the said judgment. ...5... 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the respondents, particularly respondent No. 3, the Senior DAG (A&E), H.P. Shimla-3, is directed to issue revised pension payment order in respect of the petitioner by granting him the benefit of Special Pay in addition to his basic pay of ` 3900/- for the purpose of pension from the due date. Consequently, arrears on account of difference of pension already granted and to which the petitioner may be found entitled in accordance with this judgment shall be payable to him within three months from today alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., failing which higher interest @ 9% p.a. shall be payable. 7. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 22nd November, 2010 (virender)