STATE OF H.P. Vs. JAGDISH CHAND PANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in Letters Patent Appeal No. 184 of 2011 is to the judgment, dated 19.7.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 2841 of 2009, titled Dr. Jagdish Chand Panta & Ors. versus State of H.P. and Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners (respondents herein) came to be allowed and the Office Memorandum, dated 7.7.2007, (Annexure P -5 with the writ petition), was partially quashed to the extent that the benefit under the notification would be available to all those who retired after effective date of enhancement of 25% non -practicing allowance ('NPA' for short) i.e. 1.5.2005.

(2.) THE other two appeals, (LPA No. 491 of 2012 and LPA No. 32 of 2013), have been preferred by the State of H.P. against the common judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 13th June, 2012, in CWP Nos. 4961 of 2010 and 5839 of 2010, titled as Keshav Singh vs. State of H.P. and Ors. and Bhupinder Singh Mehta vs. State of H.P. and others, respectively, whereby the appellants/writ respondents were directed to pay to the petitioners the enhanced retirement benefits on emoluments of 25% NPA on and w.e.f. 1.7.2007, irrespective of their date of retirement.

(3.) IT appears that the benefit of NPA was allowed to the petitioners for the first time w.e.f. on 1st April, 1997 and in terms of Office Memorandum dated 10th June, 2005, the NPA was modified and again it was enhanced in terms of Office Memorandum dated 7th July, 2007. The Office Memorandum, dated 7th July, 2007 was questioned by the writ petitioners on the ground that it is discriminatory and amounts to creating a class among the officers who are equal in all respects and had prayed that the said Office Memorandum be quashed, so far as it was impugned by the writ petitioners and benefit be given to the writ petitioners without making any classification.