BISHAN SINGH CHANDEL Vs. BALWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1, said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. By way of this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges willful disobedience of the directions passed by this Court while deciding CWPOA No.5378 of 2019, titled as Bishan Singh Chandel Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another. This writ petition was disposed of by Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in the following terms:-

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner superannuated on 31/3/2015 while discharging the duties of Planning and Development Officer. Despite this fact, the petitioner is not being paid the pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by him while performing his duties as Planning and Development Officer, but his pension has been determined on the basis of actual post held by him. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by this Court, in terms whereof, the respondent-University was directed to release the pay and allowances alongwith consequential benefits to the petitioner for discharging the duties of Planning and Development Officer w.e.f. 12/11/2014 to 31/3/2015, the intent of the Court was very clear that this included the pensionary benefits also because the pensionary benefits obviously come within "consequential benefits". Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the CCS (Pension) Rules, which were prevailing at the time when the petitioner retired and by referring to the CCS (Pension) Rule 49 (2), learned Senior Counsel submitted that in terms thereof, the pension obviously has to be calculated by taking the average of all emoluments whichever are beneficial to the employee and therefore also, the intent is that the pension has to be calculated by taking into consideration the last emoluments as were being drawn by a retiring incumbent and by referring to the definition of the word 'emoluments' in Sec. 33 as well as 'average emoluments' learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there is no ambiguity, in terms thereof, as to what is to be the basis for determining the pension of a retiring officer.

(3.) Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be said that there is any willful disobedience of the directions passed by the Court in CWPOA No.5378 of 2019, by the respondents by not calculating the pension of the petitioner on the basis of salary of the post of Planning and Development Officer.