Back
2021 Supreme(HP) 500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Dr. Ved Parkash Sharma & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of H.P. & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 1200 of 2020
Decided On : 28-06-2021
Mr. S.P. Chatterji, Advocate, for the Appellant, Mr. Ajay Viadya, Sr. Addl. A.G, Mr. Hemant Vaid, Addl.A.G., Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Dy. A.G., for the Respondent.
Arbitrary fixing of cut-off dates for NPA addition to pensions violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
NPA - Pensioners' Rights - F.R.9, Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, retired doctors, challenged notifications denying NPA benefits based on their retirement dates. The court relied on previous verdicts to rule in favor of the petitioners, quashing the notifications and directing the addition of NPA to their salaries/pensions with arrears and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the notifications denying NPA benefits to pre-2006 retirees unconstitutional and ordered the addition of NPA to the petitioners' salaries/pensions with arrears and interest.
Issues: Challenge to notifications denying NPA benefits, constitutional validity of cut-off dates for NPA addition, and entitlement of arrears and interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous verdicts to establish that arbitrary fixing of cut-off dates for NPA addition to pensions violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ reliefs were allowed, impugned notifications quashed, and respondents directed to add NPA to petitioners' salaries/pensions with arrears and interest.
ORDER
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral). - The writ petitioners herein are one Dr. Ved Parkash Sharma, and, one Dr. Chander Kanta Sharma. Dr. Ved Parkash Sharma, superannuated from service on 2.12.1997, whereas, Dr. Chander Kanta Sharma, also superannuated from service on 2.12.1997. During the tenure of their services, both were in receipt of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA). The grant of NPA was in terms of Fundamental Rule ((21)(a)(i) read with Fundamental Rule 9 (21(a)(ii), and, Rules whereof, read as under:-
"F.R.9. Unless there be something repugnant in the subject or context, the terms defined in this Chapter are used in the rules in the sense here explained:-
(21)(a) "Pay" means the amount drawn monthly by a government servant as:-
(i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre; and
(ii) overseas pay, special pay and personal pay;
(ii) any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the President."
2. The grievance(s) as ventilated by the petitioners, in the extant writ petition are with respect of a notification, borne in Annexure A-2, made on 28th July, 1998, where through, though benefits of 25% NPA of basic pay, for the purpose of calculating retiral benefits including revised pension w.e.f. 1.9.1997, became bestowed, yet became restricted only to the serving as well as to those doctors who retired on and after 1.9.1997 and 1.1.2006,and hence it became denied to the petitioners, who are pre 1.9.1997/2.12.1997 and pre 2006 retirees. Consequently, the writ petitioners, pray for the afore Annexure A-2, and, of Annexure A-5, rather making the afore restrictions, being quashed and set aside. Moreover, the writ petitioners also cast a challenge upon the notifications respectively made on 31.8.1989, on 14.10.2009, and, on 21.05.2013, as respectively embodied in Annexure A-3, Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-7, where through, the benefit(s) of component of 25% NPA as a part of basic pay, for the purpose of calculating retiral benefits, has been denied to those retirees, whose superannuation occurred w.e.f. 2.12.1997 and 1.1.2006.
3. The afore grievances as ventilated in the writ petition, and, in respect whereof, a mandamus for theirs being quashed and set aside, is, asked, for being pronounced by this Court, is not longer res integra, and/or is covered by a verdict made by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in a case titled as Dr. D.R. Barwal ( now deceased) through his legal representatives Smt. Usha Barwal & others vs. State of H.P. & Others, bearing CWPOA No. 1184 of 2020, decided on 04.05.2021. Consequently, the stand in opposition to the writ claim as reared by the State of Himachal Pradesh does not carry any profound weight, and, nor is legally sustainable.
3. In addition, the vigour of the verdict (supra), rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court, is reinforced, by dependence being made by it, upon, a verdict rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4961, titled as Keshav Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 13th June, 2012, the relevant paragraphs whereof read(s) as under:-
".....13. As already stated above, earlier the NPA was allowed only to the Ayurvedic Doctors, but thereafter respondent-State took a conscious decision to extend it to Veterinary Doctors on and with effect from 1.4.1997. Thereafter there was a revision of pay scales, as indicated in the letter dated 10.6.2005, supra, but this enhancement of 25% NPA was kept as a separate entity and was not counted/taken into account for any other purpose like calculation of allowances etc. as indicated therein. Vide Office Memorandum dated 7.7.2007 quoted above, it was conveyed that the reckoning of DP for the purpose of calculation of NPA in respect of Veterinary Doctors and reckoning of element of enhanced NPA at the rate of 25% of pay for calculation of all a
