IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4428 of 2008. Reserved on: 07.05.2010. Decided on: 13.05.2010. Smt. Jaswanti Devi. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Ms. Salochana Kaundal, Advocate vice Sh. O.P. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: It will be apt at the very outset to point out that the original petition was filed by the husband of the petitioner, who died during the pendency of this petition and his legal representative, Smt. Jaswant Devi was brought on record vide order dated 6th August, 2009. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - However, in order to maintain clarity in the facts, the petitioner’s husband will be addressed as ‘original petitioner’. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner’s husband (i.e. original petitioner) was appointed as Daftri in the Punjab Language Department at Patiala. He joined his duties on 6.6.1959. He was appointed as Clerk on 7.10.1959. He was transferred on deputation to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Beas Project, Talwara in September, 1963. He joined his duties there on 6th September, 1963. In sequel to Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966, new State of Haryana was carved out and some areas of Punjab State were transferred to the State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the services of the original petitioner were allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 1.11.1966. He remained under the administrative control of Beas Construction Board upto 30th April, 1992. Beas Construction Board was wound up on 30.4.1992. Thereafter his services were transferred to Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) alongwith the office of Deputy Commissioner, Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Beas Project, Talwara. He was transferred to BBMB on 1.5.1992. He had opted for the pay-scale of Punjab State Electricity Board with effect from 1.10.1987. BBMB, i.e. respondent No.3 did not refix the pay of the original petitioner upto his retirement/superannuation, i.e. 28.2.1994. The Special Secretary, BBMB has issued letter dated 12.7.1995 for determining the terms and conditions with regard to Himachal Pradesh Government employees working in the BBMB. The text of this letter reads thus:- - 3 - “Please peruse letter of this office No.39827- 35/Regulations/1182/88/Rule-4 dated 19.10.92 vide which the partners State/Electricity Board employees shall avail the pay scales of the parent department from given option for adopting the BBMB pay scales after joining the BBMB and thereafter whenever the pay scales are revised in the parent department/boards or BBMB or there is any change on grant of promotion or selection grade by the parent departments/boards in such case with regard to their options detailed instructions have been laid down as guidelines. 2. It is clarified in this regard that these instructions shall be applicable to the employees of HP State who are on transfer in the BBMB. Thus they shall not be entitled for deputation allowance. Further they shall be given promotion according to their option for grant of LTC and leave encashment. This is issued with prior concurrence of the Chairman of BBMB.” 3. His pay was ultimately fixed by respondent No.3 in the revised pay-scale of Rs.1800-3200 as on 1.10.1987 at Rs.2200/- after granting proficiency step up on completion of eight years and promotional increment on completion of 23 years of service. His pay as on 1.10.1993 was fixed at Rs.2640/-. The last pay drawn by him was Rs.2640/- on the date of retirement, i.e. 28.2.1994. The refixation was ordered on 13.11.1996. The respondent No.2 vide letter dated 22.11.1996 sent the pay fixation statement etc. to the Deputy Commissioner, R & R Beas Project vide annexure A-1. 4. The case of the original petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the respondents have not fixed his pension on the basis of last pay drawn by him, i.e. Rs.2640/-, but his pension has been fixed on the basis of - 4 - last pay drawn, i.e. Rs.2480/- payable to the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The case of respondents No.1, 2 and 4 precisely is that the pension of the original petitioner was to be fixed on the basis of the pay scale paid to the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 5. Ms. Salochana Kaundal, Advocate vice Mr. O.P. Thakur has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents of not fixing the pension of the original petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn, i.e. Rs.2640/- on the basis of Annexure A-1 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that his pension has been rightly fixed on the basis of last pay drawn, i.e. Rs.2480/- payable to the employees of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Mr. N.K. Sood, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that respondent No.3 has refixed the pay of the original petitioner after he exercised his option for the pay-scale of Punjab State Electricity Board as per Annexure A-1. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 8. The original petitioner was working in the State of Punjab before reorganization of the State on 1.11.1966. He was working in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Resettlement and Rehabilitation, Beas Project with effect from 1st September, 1963. He was allocated to the State of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 1.11.1966. Then he went to Beas Construction Board. The Beas Construction Board was wound up on 30.4.1992. Thereafter he was transferred to Bhakra - 5 - Beas Management Board on 1.5.1992. He was not paid any deputation allowance as is evident from Annexure A-2. He had exercised his option for the pay-scales payable to the employees of Punjab State Electricity Board with effect from 1.10.1987. His prayer was not considered by the respondents till his superannuation on 28.2.1994. His case, as noticed above, was ultimately considered as per Annexure A-2 and his pay as on 1.10.1993 was fixed at Rs.2640/-. His last pay drawn was Rs.2640/- on 28.2.1994. 9. The original petitioner has worked initially in Beas Construction Board with effect from 6th September, 1963 upto 30.4.1992 and thereafter he was transferred to BBMB on 1.5.1992. He has retired on 28.2.1994 from BBMB. His pension was to be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn, i.e. Rs.2640/- and not Rs.2480/-. The decision of the State Government to fix the pension of the original petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn, i.e. Rs.2480/- was arbitrary. The explanation given by the respondents is that his pension was to be fixed on the basis of pay which he would have drawn on the establishment of parent department and not on the basis of pay last drawn in BBMB. He has been permitted to exercise his option as per Annexure A-2 which was specifically made applicable to the employees of the State Government working with BBMB. The benefit which he has drawn while working in BBMB in the higher pay-scale cannot be rendered otiose. The pension is not a bounty. An employee gets his pension after working for the number of years prescribed under the Rules. It would be very unjust and oppressive to tell an employee that his pension will be fixed in the lower pay-scale even though his pay has - 6 - been revised in the other department, i.e. BBMB in the present case. The other ground taken by respondents No.1, 2 and 4 is that in case the pension of original petitioner is fixed on the basis of last pay drawn, i.e. Rs.2640/-, it would lead to anomalous situation. According to these respondents, the persons working in the parent department will get pension on the lower pay-scale. This plea cannot be accepted. It was open to all the employees to exercise their options to go to another department on deputation/transfer basis. The petitioner in the present case has not been paid any deputation allowance since he has opted for the pay-scale of Punjab State Electricity Board. 10. No other point was urged. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 are directed to release and pay the pension to the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn by her late husband, i.e. Rs.2640/- within a period of eight weeks from today. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. May 13, 2010. (sck).