LPA No. 126 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 126 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: May 2, 2011 Punjab National Bank and others ...Appellants Versus Smt. Shyam Lata Goel and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? GURDEV SINGH, J. The present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 13.1.2010, vide which CWP No. 17658 of 1997 filed by Jai Kishan Lal Goel-respondent was accepted and it was held that he is entitled to have the pension re-worked by including the stagnation increment alongwith basic pay which shall be `2205/- with interest @ 6% per annum, which shall be effective from 1.11.1993 and the same shall be maintained throughout for reckoning the pension and that exercise of re- working of the pension was ordered to be undertaken forthwith within a LPA No. 126 of 2011 2 period of 12 weeks of the date of receipt of the copy of the order by the appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, he retired as Manager of the Punjab National Bank-respondent on 30.11.1987, after attaining the age of superannuation. His pension was fixed at `2116/- per month by not including the amount of personal qualification allowance, though that allowance was being paid to him regularly in lieu of two graded increments for passing CAIIB examination. He is being governed by the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). Without going into that aspect, his pay was fixed at `4780/- after including the personal qualification allowance and that he having retired after 31.10.1987, his pension was fixed at `2116/- per month, instead of `2390/- per month. As per regulation 35 of the Regulations, an employee retiring after qualifying service of not less than 30 years was entitled to have his pension calculated @ 50% of the average emoluments and while calculating the average emoluments, the personal qualification allowance was to be added to the basic pay. As while fixing his pay at `4780/- that personal qualification allowance of `200/- was included in the pay of ` 3025/-, which he was drawing on 1.11.1987, so the pension was to be fixed at 50% of `4780/-. This claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents, inter-alia, on the grounds that as per the Regulations, the pension is not calculated on the basis of last drawn salary. No doubt, after including the personal qualification allowance, the basic pay of the respondent was revised to `4780/-, as per the new settlement, but in case of an employee, who retired within 10 months after 31.10.1987, for the purpose of LPA No. 126 of 2011 3 calculating the pension, the salary of last 10 months in the pre-revised scale was taken into consideration. Only those allowances were to be included for calculating the pay for the purpose of pension/additional pension which qualified for payment of dearness allowance and provident fund. The personal qualification allowance did not qualify for dearness allowance or provident fund and, as such, the same was not added for calculating the average pay for the purpose of pension. As per the formula laid down in the Regulations, the pension of the petitioner was correctly calculated at `2116/- per month and he is not entitled to pension @ `2390/- per month. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, interpreted emoluments/average pay and came to the conclusion that the same includes the stagnation allowance, as per the definition contained in Clause (2) (s) and that pension was to be worked out only by adding that stagnation increment in the basic pay. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, who are appellants in the present appeal, there was no such stagnation increment, which was permissible or allowed to the petitioner and there was no question of including that increment in the basic pay, for the purpose of calculating the average pay. In fact, the petitioner was drawing `200/- per month as personal qualification allowance for having passed CAIIB examination and that allowance was merged in his basic pay, when the same was revised at the time of the settlement. Therefore, there was no question of taking into consideration the personal qualification allowance for calculating the pension. The same was to be calculated on average pay drawn by the petitioner during the last 10 months immediately before the date of attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, the findings LPA No. 126 of 2011 4 recorded by the learned Single Judge are against the Regulations and are liable to be set aside. According to him, the personal qualification allowance cannot be included in the pay as it does not qualify for dearness allowance or contributory funds. As per Regulation 35 (3) (a), additional pension shall be 50% average amount of allowance drawn by him during the last 10 months service. It was specifically pleaded by the petitioner in his replication that the personal qualification allowance of `200/- was being paid to him regularly in lieu of two increments for passing CAIIB examination as stagnation increments and, as such, that allowance was to be included in the pay for calculating the average emoluments. No additional written statement was filed by the respondents for controverting that plea of the petitioner. It was in view of that uncontroverted plea that the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the pay for the purpose of calculating the average emoluments include stagnation allowance by virtue of definition Clause (2) (s) of the Regulation. A correct finding was recorded by the learned Single Judge and we do not find any illegality or perversity in that finding. This appeal is dismissed accordingly. (M.M. KUMAR) (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE May 2, 2011 prem