CWP No.8058 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 25.2.2010 Rameshwar Kaushik ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner joined service as JBT Teacher and superannuated on 31.01.2006. During service, the petitioner was operated under family planning scheme and was granted personal pay at Rs.15/- per month which was later on revised to Rs.30/- per month. As per Punjab Civil Services Rules as adopted by the State of Haryana, pay includes personal pay. Emoluments are defined in Rule 2.44 of the rules aforesaid. It is the case of the petitioner that pension should have been granted to him by taking into account his personal pay which he was drawing till his superannuation. The respondents have also issued instructions dated 21.07.1991 (Annexure P-1) regarding grant of incentives to its employees for providing Small Family Norms, wherein it is clarified that personal pay in the revised pay scale is to be counted for all purposes of granting pensionary benefits except dearness allowance/additional dearness allowance. Petitioner made representation dated 12.08.2007 (Annexure P- 2) to the department for revising his pension by including his personal pay. CWP No.8058 of 2009 2 The relief claimed is not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner then filed CWP No.8509 of 2009, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice served by the petitioner. Vide order dated 10.02.2009 (Annexure P-6), the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 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 personal pay 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 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 CWP No.8058 of 2009 3 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 Sharma's case (supra) squarely covers the case in hand.” In view of the dictum of the aforesaid judgments, the CWP No.8058 of 2009 4 petitioner's claim for personal pay in the last pay drawn for the purpose of payment of retiral benefits, cannot be denied to him. In view of the above, present writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-6 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to settle the pensionary/retiral benefits of the petitioner by taking into consideration personal pay granted to him with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. 25.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO