CWP No.15465 of 1993.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15465 of 1993 Date of Decision: 08.02.2010 **** Shri Darshan Singh Sidhu Clerk . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. H.S. Mann, Advocate with Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 30.03.1993 and 20.01.1993 (Annexure P1 & P2). The first impugned order pertains to re-fixation of the petitioner’s pay after withdrawal of the element of Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance and the second impugned Circular contains the modified Government Instructions to the effect that “the Ex-Servicemen, re-employed pensioner will draw Dearness Allowance admissible CWP No.15465 of 1993.doc - 2 – on pension, along with his pension, and the amount of Dearness Allowance as so drawn by the pensioner will be deducted from the dearness allowance admissible to him in the re-employed post.” (2). The petitioner is an Ex-servicemen who had joined Indian Army on 13.02.1987 and retired on 31.01.1990 - after serving 25 years. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as a Clerk in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda initially on ad hoc basis on 17.07.1990 and his services were subsequently regularized on 31.12.1991. (3). Vide the impugned order (Annexure P1), the petitioner’s Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance have been refixed to his disadvantage on the basis of the revised Government instructions (Annexure P2), prompting him to approach this Court. (4). The respondents have filed their counter- reply/affidavit. The petitioner’s case appears to be that he is not drawing any Dearness Allowance on the pension paid to him by the Central CWP No.15465 of 1993.doc - 3 – Government for the Army Service rendered by him nor any House Rent Allowance is being drawn by him on such pension and as such he is entitled to both these allowances on his basic pay as a Clerk. (5). On the other hand, the respondents have proceeded on the premise that both the allowances are part of the pension being drawn by the petitioner from the Central Government. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. In my considered view the dispute can be effectively resolved by ascertaining from the Army authorities as to whether or not the petitioner was paid any DA and HRA along with his pension. If any such allowances were paid to the petitioner by the Central Government, the respondents would be well within their right to deduct the DA and HRA to the extent the same were admissible to the petitioner from the Central Government. In other words, if the DA and HRA paid to the petitioner by the Central Government was less than what he is entitled to receive as a Clerk, the respondents shall be liable to pay that difference in the allowance to him. CWP No.15465 of 1993.doc - 4 – (7). The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to approach the Army authorities and ascertain as to whether or not any DA and HRA was being paid to the petitioner along with pension and if so, to what extent? The concerned Army Authorities are directed to provide the necessary information to respondent No.2, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of communication from respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2 shall, in the light of the information to be received from the Army authorities, re-determine the claim of the petitioner for the grant of the DA/HRA. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of information from the Army authorities. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 08.02.2010 vishal shonkar