N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA v. State of Punja

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA E HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Ad and Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advo for the petitioner(s) in CWP No. ey, Advocate , Advocate P No.5079 and 5735 of 2021. Ms. Anmol Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocat for the petitioner(s) in CWP No. dvocate P No.15584 of 2016. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.12 No.12091 of 2017, Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Virender K. Shukla, Adv for the petitioner in CWP No.69 a, Advocate No.6929 of 2017. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 Mr. Kusum Raj, Advocate vocate for Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate No.7658 of 2015. for the petitioner in CWP No.76 Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP No. and in CWP Nos.14614 and 343 P No.7590 and 7488 of 2022 d 34329 of 2019. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.10 No.10766 of 2015. Mr. Pankaj Bains, Advocate vocate for Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP No. P No.20632 of 2018 2017. and in CWP No.29081 of 2017. vocate Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate apur, Advocate with Mr. Ratik Chatrath Kapur, L in CWP No.14614 of 2019 for the respondent – PSPCL in C 7590 of 2022. and in CWP Nos.7488 and 7590 Mr. H.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents in CWP No.2 P No.26336 of 2016. Mr. Sumit Kalyan, Advocate for the respondents in CWP No.1 P No.11451 of 2025. Mr. Sehajbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent – PSPCL in C L in CWP No.5735 of 2021. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate f Nos.7658, 9321, 10191, 10692, Nos.24285-2016, 6334-2017 & 3 CWP ocate for respondent-PSPCL in CWP 0692, 10766, 10776 of 2015, CWP 17 & 34329-2019. *** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This common order shall dispose d civil dispose of all the aforementioned civil writ petitions titions as they arise from a similar fa or the ilar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevit brevity, the facts are taken from CWP CWP-7658 of 2015. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7

2. The present petition has been p 6 and been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Co the Constitution of India seeking issua g issuance of a writ, direction or order quashing/sett ng/setting aside of the following:  Para- -3 of the Notification dated 15.12. 15.12.2011 issued by the Respondent No.1- -State (Annexure P-6), vide which ion of which the date for implementation of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Com recomm n and y Commission regarding pension and other retiral benefits has been fixed at 0 other r ed at 01.12.2011;  Order Order dated 06.01.2015 issued by Res by Respondent No.1-State (Annexure P-9) w 9) whereby the date of implement to be lementation has been retained to be

01.12.2011; 01.12.2  Letter Letter dated 05.02.2015 issued by d by Respondent No.2- Managing Director-cum-Chairman, Punjab Stat Directo imited State Power Corporation Limited (Annexure P-10) whereby (Annex the decision in order dated

06.01.2015(Annexure P-9) has been re 06.01.2 een reiterated; and all other orders passed by the respond all oth fits of spondents vide which the benefits of recommendat endations of the Fifth Pay Commissi m the mission have been withheld from the petitioner(s). ner(s). It is further prayed that writ in t ay be rit in the nature of mandamus may be issued, dire directing respondents to grant f the benefits of recommendat endations of the Fifth Pay Co y Commission, as mentioned Notification ation dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P ure P-6) to the petitioners who have retired betwe

11. between 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2011. FACTUAL B UAL BACKGROUND

3. Briefly, the facts of the case, as ioners se, as alleged, are that the petitioners were employ employees of the erstwhile Punjab , now unjab State Electricity Board, now reconstituted tituted as Punjab State Power Cor nafter r Corporation Limited (hereinafter PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 ‘Corporation ration’)-respondent no. 2. The peti er 25 e petitioners have rendered over 25 years of se of service to respondent No.2 an . The .2 and are currently retired. The recommendat endations of the Fifth Pay Commiss State mmission were accepted by the State of Punjab w jab with effect from 1.01.2006 and g the 6 and implemented by notifying the Punjab Civil Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rule les of Rules, 2009 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 2009’) on on 27.05.2009. The Rules of s of 2009 came e on into force on

01.01.2006.T

006.The recommendations of the the Fifth Pay Commission were adopted by d by the State of Punjab as discer discernible from Notification dated

15.12.2011 ( 011 (Annexure P-6) which clearly st of 33 arly states that the prerequisite of 33 years of servi f service to qualify for pension is disp es that is dispensed with. It further states that once an emp n employee attains a minimum qualify he/she qualifying service of 25 years, he/she shall be entit e entitled to a pension equal to 50% o 50% of the basic pay or emoluments received dur d during the last 10 months, which m/her. whichever is beneficial to him/her. However, the er, the abovementioned benefits were effect s were to be implemented with effect from 01.12.

01.12.2011 as mentioned in Para Para-3 of the Notification dated

15.12.2011 011 (Annexure P-6). Since the p before the petitioners had retired before

01.12.2011, t 011, they were denied the said benefit benefits.

4. Previously, certain similarly s s had arly situated retired employees had moved this C this Court and vide order dated 16.08 Civil 16.08.2013 (Annexure P-7) in Civil Writ Petitio etition No. 11373 of 2012, while g ioners hile granting relief to the petitioners therein, a C , a Coordinate bench quashed Para d Para 3 of the Notification dated

15.12.2011 a 011 and observed that it could not be ate of not be proved that the cut-off date of

01.12.2011 w 011 was the result of a conscious ancial scious decision based on financial constraints. A ints. Aggrieved by the same, the respo appeal e respondent-State preferred an appeal against the o t the order dated 16.08.2013 (Annex etters Annexure P-7) by means of Letters PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 Patents App s Appeal No. 1857 of 2013 wherein, .2014 erein, vide order dated on 09.07.2014 (Annexure P ure P-8), a Division Bench of this Co nts to this Court directed the respondents to take a fresh d fresh decision with respect to the cut- -off date.

5. Thereafter, in compliance with .2014 e with the order dated on 09.07.2014 (Annexure P ure P-8), the respondent-State, v ate, vide order dated 06.01.201 .2015 (Annexure P ure P-9), decided to retain 01.12.2011 anting 2.2011 as the cut-off days for granting benefits of th s of the recommendations of Fifth Pa ng the ifth Pay Commission as changing the same to 01.0 o 01.01.2006, would inflict the State ancial e State with a considerable financial burden. Follo . Following the respondent-State, re letter ate, respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 05.02.2

5.02.2015 (Annexure P-10) stating the to be ting the cut-off date shall remain to be

011. 01.12.2011.

6. Sub Subsequently, aggrieved retired em urt by red employees moved this Court by means of Ci Civil Writ Petition No.7239 of 20 9 of 2015, challenging the order dated

06.01.2015(A 015(Annexure P-9) which resulted ulted in quashing of the same vide order dated 1 ated 18.12.2019. The order dated 18. by the ed 18.12.2019 was challenged by the respondent- -State by means of Letters Pat 2020, rs Patent Appeal No.691 of 2020 which is curr n. is currently pending consideration. CONTENT ENTIONS

7. Lear Learned counsel of the petitioner co ner contends that vide its order dated

06.01.2015(A 015(Annexure P-9), the respondent- -State arbitrarily fixed the cut-off date as 01.1 s 01.12.2011, which is discriminator etired inatory against persons who retired from service ervice before the said date. The res t this he respondents have arrived at this decision in n in a mechanical manner, witho nt an without attempting to present an intelligible d ible differentia, which is violative of of the tive of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, a ners, as enshrined in Articles 14, 16 ion of 4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 India. Learn Learned counsel places heavy reli of a y reliance on the judgment of a Constitution tution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme C reme Court in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (198 (1983) 1 SCC 305, wherein, speaki Desai, speaking through Justice D.A. Desai, the following lowing was held: “42. pensio arbitra revisio princip some r to the underl necess princip retired consid Govern off th classif princip pensio otherw take tw succee averag of year day ea matter ceiling 36 mo .p.a. an months unrela absolu liberal only n produc The eq

2. If it appears to be undisputab nsioners for the purpose of pension ward revision permit a homogen bitrarily fixing an eligibility crit vision, and would such classificatio inciple? The classification has to b me rational principle and the ratio the objects sought to be achieved derlying the payment of pension cessary to liberalise the pension inciple behind it for granting the tired subsequent to that date simul ose who retired prior to that da nsidered necessary for augmenting overnment servants then those who f then those who retire later. T assified pensioners into two classes inciple and if the rational princ nsioners with a view to giving herwise equally placed, it would b ke two persons, one retired just a da cceeding the specified date. Both we erage emolument was the same and years of service. How does a fortu y earlier or a day later will permit atter of pension. One retiring a day e iling of Rs. 8,100/-.p.a. and average months' salary while the other wil .a. and average emolument will be c onths' average. The artificial divi related to any principle and whateve solutely no nexus to the object eralising the pension scheme. In fac ly no nexus to the liberalised pen oductive and runs counter to the w e equal treatment guaranteed in Ar putable, as it does to us that the sion benefits form a class, would its d its ogeneous class to be divided by e of criteria unrelated to purpose o cation be founded on some rational , on to be based, as is well settled, on rational principle must have nexus ieved. We have set out the objects nsion. If the State considered it d it sion scheme, we find no rational these benefits only to those who imultaneously denying the same to e to t date. If the liberalisation was e to nting social security in old age to who retired earlier cannot be worse r. Therefore, this division which asses is not based on any rational principle is the one of dividing ving something more to persons ld be discriminatory. To illustrate, rate, a day prior and another a day just t the th were in the same pay bracket the and both had put in equal number ng a ortuitous circumstance of retiring a mit totally unequal treatment in the day earlier will have to be subject to ct to t on rage emolument to be worked out on 00/- will have a ceiling of Rs. 12,000/ be computed on the basis of last ten t ten d is division stares into face and is atever principle, if there be any, has , has jects sought to be achieved by n fact this arbitrary division has not pension scheme but it is counter eme. e whole gamut of pension scheme. n as n Article 14 is wholly violated in as PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 specifi treatm hours' effect. classif uch as the pension rules being sta ecified date the rules accord d atment to equals in the matter of urs' difference in matter of retire fect. Division is thus both arbitrary a assification does not stand the test of g statutory in character, since the d differential and discriminatory r of commutation of pension. A 48 48 etirement would have a traumatic ary and unprincipled. Therefore the st of Article 14. Further the classification is w t find a single acceptable or persu is arbitrary action violated the

43. not fin This (emphasis added) (empha s wholly arbitrary because we do e do ersuasive reason for this division. ion. ” the guarantee of Article 14.

8. Learned counsel also places reli es reliance on the judgment rendered by a two-Ju Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Su ble Supreme Court in All Manipur Pensioners A ers Association by its Secretary vs SCC y vs. State of Manipur 2019 SCC Online SC SC 845, wherein, the decision in ion in D.S. Nakara (supra) was reiterated. Sp ted. Speaking through Justice M.R. Sha .R. Shah, the following was opined: “8. that th retired of gran pensio pensio India e At this classif is true classif objecti the ch others. Firstly objecti person sought intellig object Even otherwise on merits there is no valid justification to c tired pre-1996 and another who ret grant of revised pension. In our vie xus with the object and purpose nsion. All the pensioners form a nsion as per the pension rules. Ar dia ensures to all equality before law this juncture it is also necessary t assification. A valid classification is true that Article 16 of the Constit assification. However, a very classif jective. The result to be achieved by e choice of some for differential hers. A classification to be valid mu irstly, the distinguishing rationale jective and secondly, the choice rsons from another, must have a re ught to be achieved. The test for mmarised as a distinction based on telligible differentia, which has a ject sought to be achieved. Therefo erits also, we are of the firm opinion to create two classes, viz., one who o retired post-1996, for the purpose s no view, such a classification has no ose of grant of benefit of revised a one class who are entitled to d to n of s. Article 14 of the Constitution of re law and equal protection of laws. aws. ry to examine the concept of valid n. It on is truly a valid discrimination. It nstitution of India permits a valid assification must be based on a just ed by the just objective presupposes ntial consideration/treatment over ests. d must necessarily satisfy two tests. nale has to be based on a just oice of differentiating one set of t of a reasonable nexus to the objective for a valid classification may be y be d on a classification founded on an n an s a rational relationship with the (as erefore, whenever a cut-off date (as PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 the present controversy) is fixed to c r favourable consideration over o assification or valid discrimination tisfied. In the present case, the cla asonable nexus to the objective soug e pension. As observed hereinabov vising the pension is due to the incre nsioners form a single class and t r the purpose of grant of revis bitrary, discriminatory and viol onstitution of India. The State cann om amongst similarly situated perso benefits especially pensionary b assification founded on some rati tuated class is differentiated for gra to categorise one set of pensioners er others, the twin test for valid tion therefore must necessarily be y be s no e classification in question has no sought to be achieved while revising above, the object and purpose for l the increase in the cost of living. All the nd therefore such a classification revised pension is unreasonable, ble, violative of Article 14 of cannot arbitrarily pick and choose sons, a cut-off date for extension e a ry benefits. There has to be a rational principle when similarly phasis r grant of any benefit.” (emphasis in the for fav classif satisfie reason the pe revisin pensio for th arbitra Consti from a of ben classif situate added) added)

9. Per contra, learned counsel for ts that sel for respondent No.2 submits that the Corporati rporation is well within its right to pre ing in to prescribe a cut-off date, keeping in view the fin he financial implications involved. T ed at lved. The cut-off date was fixed at

01.12.2011 s 011 since modifying the same to 01 to 01.01.2006 would create a huge financial liab al liability to the tune of Rs 168.53 c esides 8.53 crores upto 30.06.2015, besides causing a re g a recurring additional burden of levant n of Rs 1.72 crores. The relevant financial det al details in this regard have been ritten been duly mentioned in the written statement fi No.2. ent filed on behalf of respondent No.2.

10. Furthermore, in compliance wi .2019, ce with the order dated 20.12.2019, respondent N dent No.2 has submitted an addition year- ditional affidavit detailing the year wise breakup reakup of those employees who h period ho have retired during the period

01.01.2006 t 006 to 30.11.2011, had qualified ser nd 33 ied service between 25 years and 33 years, but w but were not granted full pension. R sion. Referring to the same, learned counsel subm l submits that the respondent-corporat lative rporation have incurred a cumulative loss of Rs. 69 Rs. 6938.99 crores in the year 2017 2017-18. To support his case, learned PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 counsel place l places reliance on the judgment ren ch of nt rendered by a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble n’ble Supreme Court in State of Pun Punjab and others vs. Amar Nath Goyal (2005 (2005) 6 SCC 754, wherein, sp B.N. in, speaking through Justice B.N. Srikrishna, th hna, the following was held: “32. T provid Rajast far as

2. The importance of considering oviding benefits for employees, ha merous judgments including in the jasthan and Anr. v. Amritlal Gandh r as to note that: ering financial implications, while , has been noted by this Court in t in te of the following two cases. In State of o as andhi & Ors., this Court went so as "Financial impact of making can be the sole consideration our opinion, it cannot be said t arbitrarily or without any reaso in error in allowing the writ pe of 1.1.1986 for 1.1.1990" king the Regulations retrospective tion while fixing a cut-off date. In . In aid that this cut-off date was fixed reason. The High Court was clearly it petitions and substituting the date

33. Mo financ off dat that ca retired employ treated separa . More recently, in Veerasamy (su ancial constraints could be a valid f date while implementing a pension at case, the pension scheme applied tired from service before 1.7.198 ployment on the said date. It wa eated alike as they did not belong parate classes. that, (supra), this Court observed that cut- valid ground for introducing a cut nsion scheme on a revised basis. In s. In plied differently to persons who had e in 7.1986, and those who were in t was held that they could not be t be long to one class and they formed

34. In Singh" Nakara Nakara emolum same s . In State of Punjab and Ors. v. B ngh") after considering several jud kara (supra) to K.L. Rathee v. Unio kara (supra) should not be in oluments of persons who retired a me status, must be treated to be the s v. Boota Singh and Anr., ("Boota l judgments of this Court in D.S. D.S. D.S. Union of India, it was held that D.S. e interpreted to mean that the ed after a notified date holding the the same.

35. In us was Singh additio of a sp be con 36. In Welfar . In State of Punjab and Anr. v. J. was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.) ngh (supra) were reiterated, and it ditional benefit, which had financia a specific future date for conferment considered arbitrary. . In Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Ba elfare Association and Ors., a Divi L. Gupta and Ors., where one of e of l, J.), the views expressed in Boota d it was held that for the grant of t of ncial implications, the prescription ment of additional benefit, could not ia Backward Class Bank Employees aid, Division Bench of this Court said, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 even fo date w of the to be violati en for the purpose of effecting pro te was neither arbitrary, unreasona the Constitution. Moreover, the Co be endured by a person as a res olative of Article 14. promotion, the fixing of a cut-off e 14 sonable nor did it offend Article 14 e Court held that possible hardship result did not make cut-off dates

37. In 1.4.199 Conseq date w offends . In the instant case before us, the 4.1995 on a very valid ground, name nsequently, we reject the contentio te was arbitrary, irrational or ha fends Article 14.” (emphasis supplied upplied) d as , the cut-off date has been fixed as amely, that of financial constraints. ints. ention that the fixing of the cut-off at it r had no rational basis or that it

11. A At this juncture, learned counse kes a counsel for the respondents makes a reference to ce to the judgment rendered by a tw on’ble y a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou e Court in Government of Andhra udu. hra Pradesh vs. N. Subbarayudu. (2008) 14 SC 4 SCC 702 wherein the following wa ing was opined: “5. cut off econom of the execut with th such o and ar Ors., ( In a catena of decisions of this t off date is fixed by the executive nomic conditions, financial co ministrative and other attending cir the view that fixing cut off dates ecutive authority and the Court s th the fixation of cut off date by ch order appears to be on the face d arbitrary. (See State of Punjab & rs., (2005) 6 SCC 754). this Court it has been held that the t the utive authority keeping in view the l constraints and many other g circumstances. This Court is also dates is within the domain of the urt should not normally interfere by the executive authority unless face of it blatantly discriminatory l & ab & Ors. Vs. Amar Nath Goyal &

6. No 305 th consid (supra of Pun No doubt in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v 5 this Court had struck down the cu mand of pension. However, in subse nsiderably watered down the rigid upra), as observed in para 29 of the Punjab & Ors. vs. Amar Nath Goya rs. vs. Union of India 1983(1) SCC SCC e cut off date in connection with the ubsequent decisions this Court has rigid view taken in Nakara's Case f the decision of this Court in State Goyal & Ors. (supra).

7. The author These consid ordina The G joints i There may be various consideratio thorities due to which a particula ese considerations can be finan nsiderations. The Court must exerc dinarily leave it to the executive au e Government must be left with so ints in this connection. rations in the mind of the executive icular cut off date has been fixed. xed. inancial, administrative or other exercise judicial restraint and must e authorities to fix the cut off date. ate. t the th some leeway and free play at th PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15

8. In f saying arbitra counte totally Prasad Jaiswa Backw (2) SC Sadhan therefo affidav particu declar said c result. In fact several decisions of this Co ying that the choice of a cut of bitrary even if no particular reaso unter affidavit filed by the Governm tally capricious or whimsical) vid asad 1990(3) SCC 368, Union of In iswal 1994(4) SCC 212 (vide para 5 ckward Class Bank Employees We ) SCC 76 (vide para 31), Unive dhana Chaudhary & Ors. 1996(1 erefore, that even if no reason h fidavit of the Government or the e rticular cut off date has been cho clare that date to be arbitrary and v id cut off date leads to some blata sult.” (emphasis added) t of is Court have gone to the extent of t off date cannot be dubbed as eason is given for the same in the o be vernment, (unless it is shown to be vide State of Bihar vs. Ramjee of Indian & Anr. vs. Sudhir Kumar ara 5), Ramrao & Ors. vs. All India Welfare Association & Ors. 2004 004 vs. niversity Grants Commission vs. 96(10) SCC 536, etc. It follows, ows, n has been given in the counter hy a he executive authority as to why a chosen, the Court must still not s the nd violative of Article 14 unless the blatantly capricious or outrageous

12. Furt Further reliance is placed on the judg on’ble he judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou e Court in The State of Tripura vs. A ) 19 Anjana Bhattacharjee (2022) 19 SCC 705 and and State of HP vs. Rajesh Chan

77. Chander Sood, (2016) 10 SCC 77 While holdin holding that the State is well within its ff date thin its right to prescribe a cut-off date for implemen lementing grant of better and higher p Judge gher pensionary benefits, a two-Judge bench of the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ra), rt in Rajesh Chander Sood(supra) speaking thro ng through Justice J.S. Khehar, the foll he following was observed: “75. canvas the con date, f the fin legitim pensio within repeal contin others

5. Having given our thoughtful nvassed, and having gone through e considered view, that this Court h te, for extending better and higher e financial health of the employer gitimately be prescribed for extend nds available cannot assuage the nsioners. We are therefore satisfie ithin the authority of the State G ministrative powers (which it exerc peal notification dated 2.12.2004 inuing the right to receive pensio hers of the same. This right was u htful consideration to the issue e of ugh the judgments cited, we are of urt has repeatedly upheld a cut-off d on gher pensionary benefits, based on loyer. A cut-off date can therefore tending pensionary benefits, if the the liability, to all the existing tisfied to conclude, that it is well te Government, in exercise of its f its exercised, by issuing the impugned 2004) to fix a cut-off date, for nsion in some, and depriving some as unquestionably exercised by the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 State G case (s with th to alte what t this Co exercis such p obliga ate Government, as determined by se (supra), wherein this Court held, th the inherent power to review. An alter its earlier administrative deci at the State Government has done is Court in the above mentioned ju ercise of such power by the Gover ch power, should be in consonanc ligations.” (emphasis supplied) by this Court, in the R.R. Verma eld, that the Government was vested . And that the Government was free is is decisions and policy. Surely, this is But one in the present controversy. But d judgment, placed a rider on the e of overnment. In that, the exercise of nance with all legal and statutory Learned counsel also submits bmits that the judgment in Rajesh Chander So r Sood (supra) was also upheld b of the eld by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supr le Supreme Court in Satish Chander der Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 202 , 2025 SCC (Online) SC 792. OBSERVAT RVATION AND ANALYSIS

13. Hav Having heard the learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record w ord with their able assistance, the or the , the following issues arise for the consideration eration of this Court: i. Wh Whether respondent No.2, a statu statutory corporation, can deviate from the recommendations of the F t its he Fifth Pay Commission and set its own cut-off date based on its financ nancial health? ii. Wh Whether the present petition, being eing the second petition challenging the cut-off date of 01.12.2011 for i Pay for implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission, is maintainable or Com or should the petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.07. d by .07.2014(Annexure P-8) passed by the Division Bench of this Court No. urt in Letters Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 2013? 185

14. The The Punjab State Electricity Board y that Board (PSEB) is a statutory body that was formed ed on 01.2.1959, under the Elect Vide Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Vide PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 Notification N ation No 1/9/08-EB (PR) 196, dated ent of dated 16.04.2010, the Government of Punjab unbu unbundled the PSEB into two co Power o companies- Punjab State Power Corporation ation Ltd. and Punjab State Transm Thus, ransmission Corporation Ltd. Thus, admittedly, th edly, the respondent-Corporation is a s is a statutory body.

15. A A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman & MD, Kera Kerala SRTC vs. K.O. Varghese and e and others (2007) 8 SCC 231, has categorically rically held that an autonomous instru instrumentality of the State, capable of framing it ing its own rules and regulations, is tter of ns, is entitled to decide the matter of implementati entation of policies that would impac impact its financial health. Speaking through Justi h Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, the fo , the following was held: “18. W the High Court. KSRTC establi regula regula entitled particu of Gov adopte subjec terms o ndorse this reasoning or conclusion 8. We are not in a position to endor is an autonomous Corporation is a sport Corporation Act, 1950. It can tablished under the Road Transpor ployees by making appropriate gulate the service of its emplo it is such regulations are framed, it is gulations in that behalf. Until such ial health in considering whether a er a titled to take note of its financial h nhanced pay or pension in respect rticular recommendation for enhan is to ld be adopted by it and if it is to Government employees should be of time. This, of course, would be d be opted by it, from what point of ti nt in e issued by the State Government in bject to any direction that may be iss rms of Section 34 of the Act.

23. Ev its fina noticed Corpor recomm find fr of KSR the St recomm decisio decisio een clearly pleaded by KSRTC that . Even before us, also, it has been . In fact, the High Court has also financial position is unsound. In of a that the financial position of a ticed it. This Court has held tha inly relevant when the Corporation orporation like KSRTC is certainly t a implement a to whethe kes a decision as moluments and pension. Since we commendation for enhanced emolu ught out that the financial position d from the relevant aspects brough n by the view that the decision taken by KSRTC is not sound, we are of the implement, here and now, the e State Government not to imp y Commission for KSRTC and the commendations of the Fifth Pay C are fully justified. Certainly, the cision based on it by KSRTC are ted by any extraneous consideration cision cannot be said to be vitiated b it should PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 perverse appreciation of the circum phasis ircumstances obtaining.” (emphasis or per added) The decision in K.O Varghese hese (supra) was also upheld by a by a three-Judge B udge Bench of the Hon’ble Suprem upreme Court in T.M.Sampath and others vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water R

333. ter Resources (2015) 5 SCC 333 Furthermore, rmore, in a catena of judgments such a ), N. such as Amar Nath Goyal (supra), N. Subbarayudu yudu (supra), Anjana Bhattachar charjee (supra), Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) pra) and Satish Chander Sharma rma (supra,) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has con as consistently held that imposing a c ng a certain cut-off date for extending pensionary be nary benefits, for the reason of financi eld to inancial constraints, cannot be held to be arbitrary a trary and violative of Article 14 and 16 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

16. Further still, as per Annexu nnexure R-2/3 appended with the additional af nal affidavit filed on behalf of resp loyees respondent No.2, 9729 employees have retired b tired between 01.01.2006 and 30.11.2 ice of 0.11.2011 and also have a service of 25 to 33 year 3 years to their credit. As such, the he total liability up to 31.12.2019 is Rs.277,80,04 ,80,04,974/-. However, since 1541 ret he net 41 retirees have passed away, the net liability amo y amounts to Rs.233,79,90,001/- for 8 as per for 8188 retirees. Moreover, as per the said affid d affidavit, a liability of Rs.44,00,14 y the ,00,14,973/- also be incurred by the Corporation a ation as family pension for the 1541 d if the 1541 deceased retirees. Further, if the recommendat endations of the Fifth Pay Commi ommission are implemented from

01.01.2006, 006, the Corporation would have to of Rs. ave to pay an excess amount of Rs. 94,00,77,087 7,087/-. The affidavit also clearly stat curred ly states that the Corporation incurred a loss of Rs. 6 Rs. 6938.99 crores the year 2017-18

17. As such, sufficient material has al has been placed on record to show that the finan financial health of the Corporation is nd the is not sound enough to extend the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19 enhanced pe ed pensionary benefits to those wh .2011. se who retired prior to 01.12.2011. Further, it i r, it is no longer res integra tha levant that fiscal health is a relevant consideration eration for a Corporation to decide te of decide the commencement date of enhanced pe ed pensionary benefits. Therefore, ecific fore, in the absence of any specific arguments on nts on part of the learned counsel for at the el for the petitioner indicating that the said cut-off d off date has led to a blatantly capri t, this capricious or outrageous result, this Court is of is of the considered opinion that ed in that respondents were justified in deciding to i to implement the recommendations ission dations of the Fifth Pay Commission with effect fr fect from 01.12.2011 and this exercise ness. ercise is not tainted by arbitrariness.

18. Additionally, the grounds taken s have taken by the present petitioners have already been been considered by a Coordinate Be Writ ate Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. n No.11373 of 2012, and subseque ch in bsequently by a Division Bench in Letters Pate s Patent Appeal No.1857 of 2013

2013. Since the Division bench has h has conclusively sively decided this issue on merits, th ty. As , the same has attained finality. As such, the pe the petitioner ought to have filed a filed an appeal against order dated

09.07.2014(A 014(Annexure P-8) passed by the D urt in the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Pate s Patents Appeal No. 1857 of 201 f 2013. Since an effective alternate ernate remedy in the in the form of appeal was available w h they ilable with the petitioners, which they failed to exer exercise, the present writ petition is ion is not maintainable. CONCLUSI LUSION

19. In view of the discussion above, ve are above, the questions framed above are answered in t ed in the following manner: i. The PSPCL being a statutory co scribe ory corporation is entitled to prescribe a cut- -off date for implementation of th Fifth n of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, in view of its finan Pay Co of the financial health. The inability of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20 Corporation to extend benefits of enh Corpor ts has of enhanced pensionary benefits has been demonstrated by relying on coge been d is not n cogent material and as such, is not arbitrary in nature. arbitra ii. Since the issue in contention had on had already been adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court on by a D ght to urt on merits, the petitioners ought to have pursued remedy of a of appeal against order dated

09.07.2014(Annexure P-8) passed by t 09.07.2 Court d by the Division Bench of this Court in Let Letters Patents Appeal No. 1857 1857 of 2013.Therefore, the present resent writ petition is held to be not maintaina writ pe intainable.

20. Accordingly, all the present pe petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneou laneous application(s), if any, shall also all also stand disposed of.

21. Registry is directed to place a on the ace a photocopy of this order on the paper-books books of the connected matters.

19.08.2025 PC- (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) (HARP JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.20 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document