R.L. JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed for setting aside the orders dated 6.10.2016 (Annexure P-9) and 20.10.2016 (Annexure P-10), vide which, the benefit of revised pension to the petitioners was denied being contrary to the instructions dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P-l) and 18.2.2015 (Annexure P-2) with a further prayer to revise pension by including Non Practising Allowance (for short 'NPA') in the basic pay for the purpose of revised pension and pay full pension to all the petitioners, who though, have not completed 33 years of service in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court.

(2.) The petitioners were appointed by respondent No.l as 'Teacher' (Medical Education) at respondent No.2-institute. All the petitioners, except Dr. Manju Sharma, petitioner No.2 and Dr. O.P. Sachdeva, petitioner No.6 had retired from service of Haryana Government prior to 1.1.1996 i.e. before enforcement of the 5th Pay Commission report. The petitioners No.2 and 6 retired from Government service before 1.1.2006 i.e. before enforcement of the 6th Pay Commission report. Thus, petitioners No.2 and 6 are pre-1996 retirees and petitioners No.l, 2 to 5 and 8 are pre-2006 retirees from Health and Medical Education Services of Haryana Government. The petitioners are claiming revision of their pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006 by including the NPA in their basic pay and by giving them full pension instead of reducing their pension on pro-rata basis by counting 33 years of service for full pension. The details of service rendered by the petitioners are given as under:-