Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
D.L. UPPAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/01/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1660 1996 SCC (2) 344
JT 1996 (2) 408 1996 SCALE (1)812
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted;
We have heard counsel on both sides. This appeal by
special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in C.W.P. No.8687
of 1994 on July 25, 1994. The respondent had retired on
January 31, 1994 and he claimed his pension and since his
pension has not been paid, he invoked the jurisdiction of
the High Court. In the impugned order, the High Court has
directed to pay to the respondent the gratuity with 12%
interest thereon within one month from the date of judgment.
It further directed to determine the pension of the
respondent on the basis of the emoluments last drawn by him
which would be subject to the final decision that may be
made in regard to the actual scale of pay to which he is
eligible and on the basis of which pension may be computed.
Arrears paid would be adjustable thereafter. Accordingly,
direction was given to pay the pension with interest at the
rate of 12% p.a. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
We issued notice only to see that when the dispute as
regards the computation of pension is pending, how the
liability could be fastened with interest for non-fixation
of the pension. Mr. Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent has stated that the respondent’s
entitlement is to be computed on the basis of last drawn
scale of pay as found by the High Court which would be
adjusted after the fixation of pay. According to the learned
counsel, even fixation of pay has been correctly done. There
fore, there is inaction on the part of the State in
computing the pension payable to the respondent. He
further contends that persons similarly situated are being
paid pension while the same is being denied to the
respondent. It is contended by the appellants that the scale
of pay was provisionally fixed and this is matter under
consideration. Until it is decided, the State is unable to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
determine the pension payable to the respondent. Under these
circumstances, there is no slackness on the part of the
State in determining the pension payable to the respondent.
Having considered the respective contentions, we are of
the view that the High Court’s view is not correct. So long
as the scale of pay to which the respondent is entitled has
not been determined, necessarily the State Government cannot
fix the pension and that is the matter now pending decision
in the High Court. No doubt, specifically no reference is
made to the respondent before fixing the scale of pay and
the action of the other subordinates has been impugned by
the State.
Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court
is reversed. The appellants are directed to compute the
pension on the undisputed scale of pay and pay the same
within a period of two months from the date of decision. It
would be subject to the decision in the pending cases. The
State is directed to decide within six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The State is also
directed to release the gratuity payable to the respondent
within four weeks from today.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.