1966 Supreme(P&H) 213

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehar Singh, I.D.Dua and D.K.Mahajan JJ.
K.R.Erry
Versus
State Of Punjab Through Chief Secretary To Govt.Punjab
Civil Writ No. 504 of 1964,
Decided On : OCTOBER 25, 1966

Headnote:

The right to pension is a legal right and a part of the conditions of service. Reduction in pension is accordingly a justiciable matter and the rules of natural justice must be followed during the process imposing the cut. The party to be affected, therefore, must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cut.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Shri K.R. Erry joined as an Assistant Engineer in the P. W. D. Irrigation Branch in the pre-partition Punjab in November, 1926. He continued to work in that department as a permanent Assistant Engineer and was promoted in due course as an Executive Engineer. While posted as Executive Engineer (Designs) in the Central Designs Office, he was asked to prepare a design for Ghaggar Syphon as also for several other works. The design of the Ghaggar Syphon was completed in 1952 under the supervision and guidance of Shri R.R. Handa, I. S. E., Chief Engineer, Bhakra Canals, and was approved by Shri R. K. Gupta, I. S. E., Chief Engineer, who held charge of Director, Central Designs, in addition to his duties. After final approval of the design by the highest authorities, the construction of Ghaggar Syphon was entrusted to Shri A.S. Kalha, I. S. E., Superintending Engineer, II Bhakra Main Line Circle in 1953-54. The petitioner was not concerned with the construction of the Syphon at the site. In 1954, Bhakra Canals were opened for the first time. After the Ghaggar Syphon started functioning, it was found that a minor portion of the work in the bed and wing wall of river Ghaggar was damaged. On discovery of this defect, the petitioner as Executive Engineer (Designs) was asked to propose repairs to the damaged work. The petitioners suggestion in regard to these repairs was approved by the Chief Engineer and was carried out at site by Shri A.S. Kalha. Thereafter, there was no complaint of any kind about this work. About five months after the discovery of the damage, Shri Lehri Singh, Minister of Irrigation, sent a commendatory letter to the petitioner on 19-9-1954 praising his ability and devotion to duty in preparing designs of various intricate works. At the time of discovery of the defect in the Syphon, the Government appointed a Committee of Enquiry consisting of three Chief Engineers pre-sided over by Shri S.D. Khunger, I. S. E., General Manager, Bhakra Dam. After a thorough investigation, this Committee returned a unanimous verdict that the damage was not due to any fault in design and that it was due to faulty construction. After the report of this Committee of Enquiry, the Government proposed to charge-sheet the Engineers responsible for the construction. At that stage, the Irrigation Minister entrusted this matter to a High Powered Commission presided over by Dulat, J., a Judge of this Court. In 1955, the petitioner was promoted from P. S. E. Class II to P. S. E. Class I. This promotion, according to the circular of the Government, completely exonerated the petitioner of any blame or blemish whatever and was considered as a hallmark for his efficiency in service. In 1957, the report of the High Powered Commission was received by the Government in which it was observed that damage to the Ghaggar Syphon was due to faulty design and not due to faulty construction, thereby completely reversing and negativeing the conclusion of the Committee of Enquiry consisting of three Chief Engineers. In the meantime, Shri R.R. Handa and Shri R.K. Gupta, who had actively participated in the preparation of the design, had retired and had been given their full pension. Faced with this unhappy situation created by the two conflicting reports, one by technically qualified high officers and the other by a Judge of the High Court, the Government issued a letter of displeasure to the petitioner regarding the faulty design. On receipt of this letter, the petitioner protested and submitted that no explanation had been taken from him before recording this displeasure. The petitioner was thereupon inform.ed by the Chief Engineer, Shri A. C. Malhotra, I. S. E., that he had consulted the Secretary, Irrigation Department, on telephone and was informed that this note was not by way of punishment and that it will not stand in the way of the petitioners promotion. Indeed, within a few months of this letter, the petitioner was actually promoted to the rank of officiating Superintending Engineer early in 1958 and was posted as Director of Central Designs. The petitioner had also, since 1954, been earning his annual increments regularly up to the date of his retirement which is indicative of the fact that the petitioners service was fully approved by the Government. In November, 1958, the petitioner retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. Shortly after retirement, he was appointed by the Government as a Professor and Head of the Department of Civil Engineering in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh which post was held by him for about 16 months. During the five years immediately preceding his retirement from service, the petitioner earned about four promotions described by him in paragraph 19 of the writ petition. After retirement, the question of the pension permissible to the petitioner was taken up by the Government and on 29-7-1963, it was decided to impose a 20 percent cut in his pension and the cut of Rs. 2000/- in his death cum retirement gratuity. It is this order which is challenged in the present proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The right to pension is a legal right and a part of the conditions of service. Reduction in pension is accordingly a justiciable matter and the rules of natural justice must be followed during the process imposing the cut. The party to be affected, therefore, must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cut. The court held that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the cut was imposed, and therefore, the order imposing the cut was quashed.

Issues: 1. Whether the right to pension is a legal right and a part of the conditions of service? 2. Whether reduction in pension is a justiciable matter? 3. Whether the rules of natural justice must be followed during the process imposing the cut? 4. Whether the party to be affected must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cut?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to pension is a legal right and a part of the conditions of service. 2. Reduction in pension is a justiciable matter. 3. The rules of natural justice must be followed during the process imposing the cut. 4. The party to be affected must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed cut.

Final Decision: The writ petitions are accepted and the impugned orders are quashed is no order in regard to costs.