IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.12.2010 COCP No.1093 of 1998 Mankashar Dass and others ...Petitioners Versus Mr. R.S.Mann, IAS and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. I.P.Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioners claimed liberalized pensionary benefits as granted to the employees, who retired from service after 31.03.1985 though the petitioners have retired prior thereto. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.11.1992 alongwith Letters Patent Appeal No.756 of 1991 filed by the State aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge granting benefit to the similar situated employees of the State Government. The SLP against the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal and that in the writ petition by the Division Bench of this Court was dismissed on 13.05.1993. An application to clarify the order was filed in the Letters Patent appeal decided on 25.11.1992. Such application was dismissed on 20.05.1994. The SLP against the said order was also dismissed on 17.12.1996. In the present contempt petition, the grievance of the petitioners was that the revised gratuity and the pensionary benefits in terms COCP No.1093 of 1998 of the circular issued by the State Government for granting benefit to post 31.03.1985 retirees have not been granted. In the affidavit dated 03.11.1998 filed by the then Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, Chandigarh, it was stated that the benefit of enhanced limit of emoluments and death-cum- retirement gratuity has been directed to be given immediately to all the petitioners, whose cases have become final. Subsequently, another affidavit was filed by Mr. B.R.Bajaj, Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Finance on 30.04.2004, wherein it was stated that the order of this Court has been complied with in its letter & spirit. Alongwith the said affidavit, a communication dated 14.12.1998 was appended, wherein it has been stated that the pension of the petitioners cannot be revised, as the same has been fixed by merging Dearness Allowances. In respect of gratuity, it was stated to have been paid alongwith interest thereon. It was also stated in the affidavit that the ratio of Dr. Assa Singh’s case (SLP (C) No.16040 arising out of LPA No.756 of 1991) has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as State of Punjab and Another Vs. J.L.Gupta and others (2000) 3 SCC 736. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the contents of the affidavit dated 30.04.2004 remain uncontroverted. The revised gratuity stated to have been paid, whereas the pension has been stated to be fixed by merging Dearness Allowance i.e. the benefits arising out of the order passed by this Court on 25.11.1992. In a judgment reported as State of Punjab and others Vs. Boota Singh and another (2000) 3 SCC 733, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the earlier judgments has taken a view that specific date for conferment of such additional benefits cannot be considered as arbitrary. 2 COCP No.1093 of 1998 The said view is reiterated in J.L.Gupta’s case (supra) and State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and others (2005) 6 SCC 754. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the benefit of liberalized pensionary benefits including death-cum-retirement gratuity and leave encashment may not be applicable to the persons, who retired prior to the cut off date. But keeping in view the fact that inter parties judgment has attained finality, the State is bound to implement the same. As per the affidavit dated 30.04.2004, the pension has been fixed after merging Dearness Allowance and the amount of gratuity stands paid. Therefore, it appears that substantially the order passed by this Court on 25.11.1992 stands complied with. Therefore, no further action is required in the present contempt petition. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to submit representation in respect of any benefit, which remains unpaid. As and when such representation is moved, the competent authority i.e. the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order thereon within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation. With the said direction and liberty, the present contempt petition is disposed of. 23.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3