C.W.P. No.1754 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1754 of 2010 Date of Decision: 12.12.2011 Subhash Chander Pujara ....Petitioner Versus Director, Urban Local Bodies Department, Haryana and another ...Respondents C.W.P. No.9685 of 2011 Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Director, Urban Local Bodies Department, Haryana and another ...Respondents C.W.P. No.20815 of 2010 Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Director, Urban Local Bodies Department, Haryana and another ...Respondents C.W.P. No.20865 of 2010 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Director, Urban Local Bodies Department, Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. B.S. Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. C.W.P. No.1754 of 2010 2 Mr. Sanjay S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP No.9685 of 2011. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.1754 of 2010, 9685 of 2011, 20815 of 2010 and 20865 of 2010 as the question involved in these cases is identical. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP No.1754 of 2010. The petitioner, who retired as Head Clerk from Municipal Council, Sonipat on 31.12.2006 is seeking release of the amount of difference of salary, gratuity, leave encashment and pension on account of pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The petitioner, herein, retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2006. The Department paid all the dues to the petitioner as per pre-revised pay scale. Whereas, the respondents vide decision dated 25.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) had accepted the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and made it applicable to the employees of Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils/Committees and Improvement Trusts in Haryana w.e.f. 01.01.2006 under the Haryana Civil Services (revised pay) Rules, 2008. The petitioner, therefore, vide representations (Annexures P-2 and P-3) asked for the release of the amount of difference of salary, gratuity, leave encashment, as well as, the revised pension. When no action was taken on the representations, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. C.W.P. No.1754 of 2010 3 Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed. As per the reply filed, the only objection taken by the respondents is that the petitioner, who was relying upon the revision of pay scale on the basis of recommendation of the Pay Commission accepted by the Department vide letter dated 25.08.2009, vide its letter dated 12.03.2010 (R-1) had subsequently decided to grant revised pension of retired employees of municipalities in the State of Haryana w.e.f. 01.04.2010 and hence, the earlier letter issued by the Financial Commissioner stood withdrawn. Heard. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions made by the respondents. The respondents have not been able to answer the query raised by this Court vide its order dated 12.09.2011 i.e. one of the prayer of the petitioner was for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the amount of difference in salary and the retiral benefits on account of upward revision of pay scales, whereas, R-1 talks about only the grant of revised pension w.e.f. 01.04.2010. As per P-1, the Government decided to grant revised pay scales to all the employees of Municipalities i.e Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils/Committees and Improvement Trusts w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 31.12.2006 and as per P-1, the pay was revised w.e.f. 01.01.2006. As per the 6th Pay Commission, the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of difference in pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till the date of retirement. The letter (R-1) does not talk about the revised pay scale. Thus, the objection that the petitioners are not entitled to the salary as per revised pay scale as per the 6th Pay Commission in terms of the letter P-1 cannot be sustained. With respect to the question of pension, it has not been denied that the question of pension is governed by the Haryana Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1993. As per Rule C.W.P. No.1754 of 2010 4 6(2), “a municipality shall make monthly contribution towards the fund at the rate of 10% of the basic pay of all municipal employees who opt for pension under these rules.” As per Rule 9(1) of these Rules “for the purpose of grant of pension to the employees, the rules relating to pension as contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II as applicable to the State of Haryana shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees and for that purpose the terms and expressions not otherwise defined in these rules, shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I.” It is not denied in the reply that the question of amount of pension is governed by Rule 6.24 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II as applicable to the State of Haryana. Rule 6.24(1) of the Rules reads as under :- “6.24(1) The term “Average emoluments” means the average calculated upon the last [ten months]. The said rule was amended vide notification dated 30.11.2007 and as per the said notification, Rule 6.24(1) of the Rules reads thus ; “6.24(1) The pension shall be calculated on the pay last drawn by the Government employee on the date of retirement.” Thus, the respondents are bound by the Rules governing the pension @ 50% of the average emoluments i.e. average calculation upon the last ten months service. However, the said rules having been amended vide notification No.3/8/04-2 dated 30.11.2007, the petitioner in CWP No.1754 of 2010 and petitioner in CWP No.20865 of 2010 will be entitled to pension @ 50% of the average emoluments i.e average calculation upon the last ten months service, having retired prior to the amendment of rules, whereas, petitioner in CWP No.9685 of 2011 and petitioner in CWP No.20815 of 2010 shall be entitled to pension on the pay last drawn by the C.W.P. No.1754 of 2010 5 Government employee on the date of retirement having retired after the amendment of Rules vide notification No.3/8/04 dated 30.11.2007. The letter R-1 cannot override the statutory rules governing the grant of pension. In view of the above, the present petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to make the payment towards the salary as per the revision of pay scale granted vide P-1 w.e.f 01.01.2006 till the date of retirement, in case, the same has not already been paid and thereafter, the salary having been paid as per the revised pay scales, the pension as per the Haryana Municipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1993 governing the petitioner and subsequent notification No.3/8/04-2 dated 30.11.2007 as applicable to the respective petitioners in terms of Rule 6.24(1) of the Rules and amended vide notification dated 30.11.2007 as is applicable to them. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 12.12.2011 JUDGE gurpreet