Case: State Of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh And Ors

This appeal by certificate of fitness granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is directed against the judgment dated April 4, 1967 of a Division Bench of that Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 104 of 1967 whereby they judgment and order dated December 19, 1966 of Narula, J. (as he then was) in Civil Writ Petition No. 298 of 1966 was affirmed.2. It appears that the respondent joined the Punjab Education Department (Class II) Service by direct recruitment as a senior lecturer in 1933. He was promote to Punjab Education Services (Class I) on October 1, 1949. He was given the selection grade with effect from February 15, 1956 and in due course rose to the position of Director of Public Instruction-cum-Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Education Department. He proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement on March 18, 1958, on attaining the age of superannuation. In June, 1961, he received a copy of letter No. 5137-Ed-1-60/9269 dated May 2, 1961 addressed by the Secretary to Government Punjab Education Department, to the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, Chandigarh, conveying the sanction of the Governor of Punjab to the grant to him, i.e., the respondent of superannuation pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity of Rs. 417.02 per mensem and Rs. 17, 030.25 in lump sum respectively under Rules 5.27 and 6.13 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II read with para 9(1)(a) of the New Pension Rules, 1951. It was stated in the aforesaid letter that personal file of the respondent had been examined with reference to Rule. 6.4 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II and Government were satisfied that his service record was not satisfactory and a cut of 10 per cent had accordingly been made in the amount of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity admissible to him. On January 28, 1962, the respondent submitted representations to the Chief Minister and Governor of Punjab against the aforesaid decisions of the Government to apply 10 per cent cut in his pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity but the same proved abortive. After the establishment of the Board set up to examine and remove the grievances in the matters of promotion and fixation of pension, etc., of the Gazetted officers of the Government, the respondent addressed a representation to the said Board on September 14, 1964, against the aforesaid decision of the Government to apply a cut of 10 per cent in his pension and gratuity. On November 1, 1965, the respondent received a copy of letter No. E.D.I. - 4(64)-65/22436 dated October 21, 1965, addressed by the Education Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Education Department, to the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, intimating that in supersession of the aforesaid letter dated May 2, 1961, of the Punjab Government, it had been decided to grant to the respondent a superannuation pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity of Rs. 440.18 per mensem and Rs. 18, 927.5o in lump sum respectively under Rules 5.27 and 6.13 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II read with para 9(i)(a) of the New Pension Rules, 1951. In para 3 of the letter, it was reiterated that a cut of 5 per cent had been made in the pension admissible to the respondent as his service record which had been examined with reference to Rule 6.4 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. 11 had not been satisfactory. Aggrieved by this communication, the respondent filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, being Civil Writ Petition No. 298 of 1966, challenging the aforesaid decision of the Punjab Government which was, as already stated, allowed by Narula, J. (as he then was) by his judgment and order dated December 19, 1966. following the Full Bench judgment of this Court dated October 25, 1966 in Civil Writ Petition No. 504 of 1964 entitled Shri K. R. Erry Retired Superintending Engineer, 45 Cecil Hotel, Simla v. The State of Punjab Dissatisfied with the judgment and order, the appellants preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No. 104 of 1967 which did not meet with success. Thereupon the appellants applied for a certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution which was granted to them. This is how the matter is before us.

Reasoning:
We regret we are unable to accede to these contentions.4. Though the impugned order imposing cut in pension and gratuity is not one of reduction in rank falling within the purview of Art. 311(2) yet there can be no doubt it adversely affected the respondent and such an order could not have been passed without giving him a reasonable opportunity of making his defence.The decision of this Court in M. Narasimacharis case (supra) on which strong reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellants is of no assistance to them as the point as to whether an opportunity to show cause was to be afforded to a Government servant before applying a cut in his pension in view of the principle of natural justice embodied in the well-known maxim audi alteram partem was never urged or gone into in that case, Furthermore as pointed out by Palekar, J., while speaking for the Court in K. R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehtas case (supra) the question whether pension is a bounty or property did not arise in the former case. The present case is, in our opinion, fully covered by the judgment of this Court in K. R. Erry and Sobhag Raj Mehtas case.7. For the foregoing reasons we are of the view that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality and were rightly rendered.