Satpal Sachdeva v. Director, Urban Local Bodies & Ors.

07.11.2012, Mr. Sameer Pal Srow, Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana is present in Court. Additional affidavit has also been filed on his behalf. The aforesaid affidavit reads thus: “1. That as per Haryana Government Notification No.GSR/4 Const./Article 309/98 dated 07.01.1998, Sh. Satpal Sachdeva, Clerk was not entitled for 3rd ACP. As such he is entitled for revision of pension on the old rates on the basis of emoluments drawn/to be drawn in the pre revised pay scale. As per Haryana Government notification No.GSR/ Const./Article 309/08 dated 30.12.2008, 3rd ACP was granted to the petitioner in the new pay grade w.e.f.

01.01.2006 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra vide his letter No.3598- 3600/LFA, dated 21.07.2011 and accordingly arrears of pay amounting to CWP No.7504 of 2011 4 Rs.37,302/- was released to the petitioner on 02.10.2011. Moreover, the difference of new pay scale arrears of leave encashment and gratuity amounting to Rs.36,993/- were also paid to the petitioner on 09.04.2012. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the benefit of revision of pension was also allowed to him w.e.f. 01.04.2012 as per decision of Govt. conveyed vide Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Urban Local Bodies Department memo No.4/52009-2CII dated

12.03.2010. True copy of above said letter dated 12.03.2010 is annexed as Annexure R-1.

2. That the Director, Local Audit Haryana, Chandigarh has also issued the necessary clarifications/directions vide their memo No.III(284)Pen/LAD/Tech./10/3966 dated 30.07.2010 that benefit of revision of pension is admissible to those employees of Urban Local Bodies/Improvement Trusts, who retired on or after 01.04.2010 as allowed by the Govt. vide letter dated

12.03.2010 and employees who retired from

01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010, are to be paid pension on the old rates on the basis of emoluments drawn/to be drawn in the Pre Revised Pay Scale. A copy of letter dated

30.07.2010 is annexed as Annexure R-2.

3. That retired employees of various Committees/ Councils/Corporations filed civil writ petitions praying therein to grant benefits of revision of pension w.e.f.

01.01.2006, which have been allowed by the Hon'ble Court. The State government CWP No.7504 of 2011 5 challenged the above said orders passed by Hon'ble Single Bench by filing LPA's, which have been now dismissed by the Double Bench of the Hon'ble Court. The matter for filing SLP against the orders passed in LPA's is under active consideration with the State Government.

4. That the deponent is only competent to sanction the pension as per provision of relevant rules instructions of the State Government and accordingly the pension case of the petitioner was received in the Directorate on 01.06.2011 and the pension was sanctioned on 10.06.2011 vide PPO No.5584. It is also pertinent to mention here that remaining retiral benefits have also been granted to the petitioner by the Authority concern. Hence, present writ petition deserved to be dismissed being infructuous. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be dismissed with cost in the interest of Justice.” It is not in dispute that the civil writ petitions filed by similarly situated employees have been allowed by this court against which LPA's also have been dismissed. A perusal of the averment made would show that the benefits on the basis of recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission for the purpose of revising the retiral benefits were denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the CWP No.7504 of 2011 6 matter for filing SLP is under consideration. Admittedly, though there is no interim stay in favour of the respondent it has been pointed out before this Court by the Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana that the total amount payable to the retirees of the State of Haryana is a huge amount having considerable financial constraint and thus, it is not possible for him to say anything with regard to payment of such benefits to the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondent- authorities totally unreasonable and contemptuous. At this stage, Director, Urban Local Bodies seeks short adjournment to get further instructions. List on 11.12.2012. In the meantime, till the petitioner's dues are paid, the salary of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Shahabad and Municipal Committee, Kurukshetra is stayed. At this stage, the order dated 11.12.2012 be also noticed: “At the outset, it may be noticed that more and more litigation is coming on the point in issue. Similar writ petitions have already been allowed. Respondents have not filed any affidavit to explain their conduct after the observations made by this Court vide order dated 1.12.2012. CWP No.7504 of 2011 7 Let an explanation in this regard be submitted, especially keeping in view the fact that no worthwhile defence has been put in the instant writ petition and the other writ petitions of similar nature except to state that this involves a huge expenditure. List on 21st December, 2012. Let an affidavit of the Chief Secretary of State of Haryana be filed.” Today, an affidavit of Sh. P.K. Chaudhary, Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, has been filed in Court. The same is taken on record. Paras No.4 to 6 of the aforesaid affidavit read thus: “4. That the issue with respect to granting revised pensionary benefits to the municipal employees taking 1.4.2010 as the cut off date, instead of 1.1.2006, has already been decided against the State and even the LPA against the same has been dismissed. The department has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is pending. There is, however, no order of interim stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court so far.

5. That the issue has been re-examined by the State Government and it has now been decided in consultation with the Finance Department, that the retiral pensionary benefits of the municipal CWP No.7504 of 2011 8 employees of the State be revised w.e.f 1.1.2006 instead of 1.4.2010, subject to the outcome of the pending SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. That in view of the decision so taken in the issue in dispute, no further cause of action survives in favour of the petitioner and the Writ Petition may be dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.” Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from Ranbir Singh, Assistant Director, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, who is present in Court, states that the monetary benefits shall be released to the petitioner within two weeks from today. In view of the aforesaid stand taken, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition has been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. December 21, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE