RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Master in the Education Department and has since retired from service as Headmaster on 30.6.1988, whereas petitioner No. 2, who was also appointed as Master, left service on 23.11.1985. After they ceased to be in service, the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 2143 of 1994 claiming the benefit of the selection grade, and vide judgment dated 26.5.1994, the petition was allowed and the selection grade granted to them w.e.f. 1.4.1972 and 11.1.1974 respectively. An order to that effect qua petitioner No. 1 Annexure P-3 dated 8.11.1993 was also made but it was also stipulated therein that he was to be allowed arrears for a period of 38 months only preceding the date of the filing of the writ petition i.e. from 30.5.1993. A similar order Annexure P-4 dated 1.8.1996 was subsequently made qua petitioner No. 2 as well. The petitioners, therefore, applied for refixation of their pension on account of revision of their pay as a result of the judgment in their favour. This claim has been denied by the respondents vide Annexures P-6 and P-7 dated 11.7.1996 and 10.10.1997 respectively on the ground that as no arrears beyond 38 months had been given to the petitioners and there had only been a notional increase in their pay, no additional pension was payable in the light of Rule 6.24 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules II as applicable to Haryana (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). Annexures P-6 and P-7 have been impugned in the present petition.

(2.) Mr. Dalal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the matter in issue was fully covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court reported as Sant Lal v. State of Haryana and others, 1997 3 SCT 511, where a similar argument with respect to the denial of revised pension by recourse to Rule 6.24 (vii) of the Rules made by the State was repelled and it was directed that the pension be recomputed and paid. It is the admitted case that as a consequence of this Court's decision in C.W.P. No. 2143 of 1994, the petitioners' salary was to be revised on account of a change in the date with which they were to be granted the selection grade, though the payment of the arrears had to be restricted to 38 months. It is, therefore, to be noted that Rule 6.24 cannot come in the way of the petitioners as the payment of the arrears had been restricted by the Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the present petition deserves to succeed.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed, Annexures P-6 and P-7 are quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to revise the pension payable to the petitioners within four months from the date, that a certified copy of the order is made available to them and to make payment of the arrears that may fall due within two months thereafter. No order as to costs.