Back
2021 Supreme(HP) 957
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
DR. VED PARKASH SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS — Respondents
CWP No. 1200 of 2020
Decided On : 28-06-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.P. Chatterji.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Viadya, Mr. Hemant Vaid, Mr. Vikrant Chandel.
The denial of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) benefits to specific groups of retirees was unconstitutional and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
NPA - Pensioners' Rights - Fundamental Rule 9(21)(a)(i) and (ii) - CWP No. 4961 - Dr. D.R. Barwal vs. State of H.P. & Others
Fact of the Case:
Dr. Ved Parkash Sharma and Dr. Chander Kanta Sharma, retired doctors, challenged the denial of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) benefits for pre-1.9.1997/2.12.1997 and pre-2006 retirees. The court considered the precedent set by Dr. D.R. Barwal vs. State of H.P. & Others and CWP No. 4961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of NPA benefits to pre-1.9.1997/2.12.1997 and pre-2006 retirees was unconstitutional and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned notifications were quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to make additions of NPA and recalculate the pension for the petitioners, with accrued arrears to be paid within four months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of NPA benefits to pre-1.9.1997/2.12.1997 and pre-2006 retirees, and the constitutional validity of the restrictions imposed on NPA benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedent set by Dr. D.R. Barwal vs. State of H.P. & Others and CWP No. 4961, emphasizing that arbitrary fixing of cut-off dates for NPA benefits within homogeneous classes of pensioners was unconstitutional. The denial of NPA benefits violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ reliefs were allowed, and the impugned notifications were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to make additions of NPA and recalculate the pension for the petitioners, with accrued arrears to be paid within four months.
ORDER :
1. 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.
4. 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 allowances/benefits in respect o
