RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, now aged 76, retired on superannuation on July, 14, 1969. At the time of his retirement the petitioner was holding the post of Head Mistry in the Water Works Section, Chamba Division, H. P. P. W. D. The pension case of the petitioner was for the first -time referred to the Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh, Simla in the month of August, 1973. After exchange of some correspondence a certificate and report on the title to pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity was issued by the Accountant General in the month of July, 1975. The petitioner was held entitled to superannuation pension not exceeding Rs. 36 plus Rs. 17.50 ad -hoc increase per month and death -cum -retirement gratuity not exceeding Rs. 1,123.75. The pensionary benefits were quantified accordingly after taking into account the qualifying service rendered by the petitioner with effect from August 1, 1950 to July 14, 1969. The services rendered by the petitioner in the erstwhile Chamba State upto July 31, 1950 were, however, not taken into account as qualifying service while determining the pensionary benefits as aforesaid. The petitioner having made a representation in that regard to the competent authority it was decided that his service with effect from March 1, 1925 to July 31, 1950 should also be counted towards qualifying service for the purposes of pensionary benefits. Pursuant to the said decision a fresh reference was made to the Accountant General in October 1976 with a request to re -determine the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of his having rendered service from March 1, 1926 to July 14 1969 The Accountant General issued a revised certificate and report on the admissibility of pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity after allowing the benefit of maximum of qualifying service of 30 years as per the extent rules in September 1981 The petitioner was held entitled to superannuation pension not exceeding Rs. 59 plus Rs. 17.50 ad -hoc relief per month and death -cum -retirement gratuity not exceeding Rs. 2,015. Upon revision of pay scales of various categories of employees of the State Government with effect from February 1,1968, the pay scale of the post held petitioner was revised, as a special case, by the State Government ! February, 9, 1983. A fresh reference was thereupon made once again to the Accountant General for revision of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner in March, 1983. Thereupon a new certificate Ld report on the admissibility of pension and death -cum retirement gratuity admissible to the petitioner was issued by the Accountant General in December 1984 The petitioner was held entitled to superannuation pension not exceeding Rs. 76 and ad -hoc relief in the sum of Rs. 32 50 per month and death cum -retirement gratuity not exceeding Rs. 3,250. Be it stated that the latest certificate and report were issued by the Accountant General after a letter dated October 31, 1984, addressed by the petitioner to one of us (Chief Justice) was registered as a writ petition but before notice was ordered £ issue thereon on December 26, 1984.

(2.) From the facts set out above, the incontrovertible position which emerges is that the petitioners pensionary benefits were for the first -time determined nearly six years after his retirement and that the subsequent revisions took place nearly twelve years and fifteen years after his retirement. True it ,s that the petitioners case was not an ordinary pension case and that having regard to the chequered history of his server career some delay m the settlement of his pension case was inevitable Even then the delay of six years in determining the pensionary benefits initially and the subsequent revisions at the delayed intervals of twelve and fifteen years appear to be unreasonable. There is no reason why the creation of £ supernumerary post for the petitioner, which entitled him to claim pension after having put m about 44 years of service, should have been delayed S 1972, that is until nearly three years after his retirement from service There is also no reason why even thereafter a period of about one year should have elapsed before the pension case was referred to the Accountant General and why the clarification of the doubt raised by the Account General in regard to the admissibly of pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he was merely a work -charged employee should have consumed nearly two more years. The grossly delayed action at all the three stages resulted in the pension case being finalist for S first time nearly six years after the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioners claim for treating the services rendered by him in the erstwhile Chamba State as qualifying service appears to have been made wayback in 1973 The competent authority took nearly three years to decide upon the said legitimate claim and in forwarding the case for revision of pension on that basis to the Accountant General. The Accountant General took nearly five years to revise the pensionary benefits consequent upon such reference and for this gross delay on his part no explanation is coming forth. The process of the first revision, which entitled the petitioner to draw the pensionary benefits at the rate legitimately due to him, thus consumed nearly twelve years. One cannot but regard this further delay as unconscionable. The revision of pay sclaes of employees of the State Government with effect from February 1, 1968 took place by an order issued on July 30, 1970, that is, within about one year from the date of retirement of the petitioner. Still, however, the benefit of revision of the pay scale was granted to the I petitioner thirteen years later. Consequent upon the revision after such an inordinate delay, a reference for the re -determination of pensionary benefits in respect of the petitioner came to be made. It again consumed nearly two years before the benefit actually reached the petitioner. Indeed, before the benefit actually accrued to the petitioner, he had already moved the court and his petition was duly registered. It is thus clear that the true basis on which the pensionary benefits were due and payable to the petitioner, who may be one of the lowliest amongst the lowly paid employees, came to be determined nearly fifteen years after his retirement when he was in his mid -seventies. Ihe hardship, anxiety and agony through which the petitioner must have passed all these years is not difficulty to appreciate.

(3.) Chapter VIII of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") deals with the determination and authorisation of the amounts of pension and gratuity. Rules 56 to 74 are comprised in this Chapter. Briefly speaking, the rules, inter alia, contemplate the following steps to be taken in the sequence of time : (I) the preparation of a list every six monts. that is, on the 1st January, and the 1st July, of each year, of all Government servants who are due to retire within the next 24 to 30 months of that date and the supply of a copy of every such list to the Accounts Officer concerned not later than the 31st January, or the 31st July, as the case may be, of that year, (2) the preparation of pension papers to commence two years before the date on which a Government servant is due to retire on superannuation, or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement whichever is earlier ; such preparatory work to consist of three consecutive stages, namely, verification of service record, making good of omissions in the service book and obtaining of requisite particulars from the retiring Government servant ; the last of the abovementioned stages to be completed eight months prior to the date of retirement, (3) the completion of the pension and gratuity papers and the forwarding thereof to the Accounts Officer concerned not later than six months before the date of retirement; (4) the ascertainment and assessment of the Government dues and furnishing of particulars thereof to the Accounts Officer atleast two months before the date of retirement; (5) the assessment of the amount of pension and gratuity and the issue of the pension payment order by the Accounts Officer not later than one month in advance of the date of retirement and (6) the determination by the Head of Office of provisional pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity, without delay, in cases where the Government servant is likely to retire before his pension and gratuity or both can be finally assessed and settled in accordance with law ; the payment of such provisional pension and gratuity not to continue beyond the period of six months from the date of retirement by which time the final amount of pension must be determined.