SATISH BHANOT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure P -7), whereby, the claim of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits has been rejected. A prayer has also been made for direction to respondents to grant pension and other consequential benefits as has been granted to other similarly situated employees.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Deputy Advocate General in the office of Advocate General, Punjab on 09.07.1993 in the pay scale of Rs. 4500 -125 -5000 -150 -5990 -200 -6100/ 600 special pay and allowances. The appointment of the petitioner was subject to decision of CWP No. 15237 of 1990 titled as 'Mrs. S.K. Bhatia, AAG vs. State of Punjab and others'. The petitioner continued to work on the said post till 31.03.2004. The post of Deputy Advocate General was upgraded to the post of Senior Deputy Advocate General by the Committee consisting of the then Principal Secretary Home, Additional Secretary Home and Advocate General, Punjab. As per decision of the Committee, the petitioner was re -designated as Senior Deputy Advocate General vide letter dated 31.03.2004 and continued on said post till 27.05.2009. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 26.07.2007.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another vs. S.K. Bhatia and others, Civil Appeal No. 5810 of 2000 decided on 17.03.2009 (Annexure P -8) and State of Punjab and another vs. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 7872 of 2004 decided on 23.09.2010 (Annexure P -9). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in various judgments, it has been settled that wherever the rights of the parties have been settled by the judgments of the Courts and the State has taken all the available remedies upto the highest Court, then the judgment must be accepted in its true spirit. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by decision of CWP No. 438 of 2002 titled as Satbir Singh and others vs. State of Haryana. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India as no pick and choose policy can be adopted from amongst the similarly situated persons. The action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but the same is unjust and mala fide also.