CWP No.6993 of 2008 - 1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 07.01.2009 CWP No.6993 of 2008 Ajaib Singh Kandhari … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CWP No.7002 of 2008 Amrit Singh Chopra … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.JK Goel, Advocate,for the petitioners. Mr.BS Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. This judgment of mine shall dispose of CWP Nos.6993 of 2008 and CWP No.7002 of 2008 as common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions. However, the facts are being referred from CWP No.6993 of 2008. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Auditor in the year 1950. Later on, he was promoted as Examiner, Local Fund Accounts in the CWP No.6993 of 2008 - 2- pay scale of Rs.3700-5000 plus Rs.400/- as Special pay, with effect from 01.01.1985. He retired from the service in the same rank on 31.01.1986 on attaining the age of superannuation. His pension was to be fixed at the rate of 50 per cent of the basic pay. The pay scales of the Punjab Government Employees were revised on the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission and for the post of Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, the pay was revised with effect from 01.01.1986 from Rs.3700-5000/- plus special allowance of Rs.400/- to Rs.13500-16800/-. However, the special pay was abolished and the initial start was given at Rs.14300/-. Simultaneously, with the revision of the pay scales, there has been a revision in the pension also. The dispute in the present writ petition is that the petitioner’s revised pension has been fixed at 50 per cent of the basic pay of Rs.13500/-, whereas he is claiming 50 per cent of the basic pay of Rs.14300/-. This fact has not been disputed. It is also admitted position that even though the revised pay scale was of Rs.13500-16800/-, but the initial start in the same pay scale was given at Rs.14300/-. Had the petitioner been in service as on the date aforesaid, he would have drawn salary at the basic pay of Rs.14300/- as the initial start. The Punjab Government vide letter dated 25.8.2005, Annexure R-1, issued instructions for payment of the pension/family pension to the Government employees , which reads as under: “In respect of Government employees retired from service between 1.1.1986 and 31.12.1995 the basic pension already consolidated w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of Finance Department letter No.1/7/98-IFP III/8825, dated CWP No.6993 of 2008 - 3- the 21st 1998/ 18th August, 1998 shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay scale introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 for the post last held by the pensioner. However, the same may be reduced pro-rata where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rules in force at the time of retirement and in no case it will be less than Rs.1310/- per month. The upper ceiling of pension consolidated under these orders will be 50% of the highest pay of Punjab as already clarified in above said communication.” Under the aforesaid instructions, retired employees were entitled to 50 per cent of the minimum pay of the scale introduced with effect from 01.01.1996 of the post last held by them. Therefore, the thrust seems to be on the post held by the petitioner. Had the petitioner been in service on the date aforesaid, he would have definitely drawn basic pay of Rs.14300/- as initial pay which is a minimum payable in the pay scale of Rs.13500-16800/- introduced with effect from 01.01.1996. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to 50 per cent pension of the initial basic pay of Rs.14300/- instead of Rs.13500/-. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioners 50 per cent pension of the initial basic pay of Rs.14300/- instead of Rs.13500/- with effect from 01.01.1996. Let the arrears be CWP No.6993 of 2008 - 4- calculated and paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment by the competent authority. No costs. 07.01.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO