JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J. 

1. This judgment shall dispose of both the above-said writ petitions, as common question of law and facts are involved for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP- 5070-2020, titled as ‘Major Dr. Bhupindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others’.

2. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the element of Non-Practicing Allowance in the pension of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.07.2011, as per notification dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure P-6), with all consequential benefits and arrears be released along with 18% penal interest.

3. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that the petitioners were employed in the Animal Husbandry Department as Veterinary Doctors and have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation between the years 1988 to 2009. The precise grievance raised in the present petition is that the respondents have included the Non-Practicing Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'NPA') to the pension of the veterinary doctors as is being given to the medical doctors, however, the said benefit has only been confined to the retirees who have retired after 01.07.2011. Further, the respondents without any reasonable nexus have put the employees into two categories, first who are getting pension with Non-Practicing Allowance and second who are getting pension without Non-Practicing Allowance. The service particulars of the petitioners as given in Annexure P-1 are reproduced as under :-

3(i) It has further been pleaded that the veterinary doctors employed in the State of Punjab, made a representation to the respondents that they should be granted the same pay scale as is being granted to the Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission but the same was not granted to them. Consequently, they approached this Court by filing CWP No.6286 of 1986 titled as ‘Dr. Sukhdev Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and another’ and the said writ petition was partly allowed vide order dated 02.06.1989. The concluding para of the said order reads as under :-

“For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is partly allowed with costs. Counsel’s fee Rs.1,000/-. A direction is given to the respondents to allow Selection Grade on twenty per cent posts of Veterinary Officers with effect from 1-1-1978 when the pay scales were revised by the Punjab Government. If it is considered necessary in the aforesaid process to revise the pay scales of promotional posts, it is left to the State Government to do so as well. These directions be complied with in a period of three months.”

3(ii) Thereafter, the petitioners therein, filed review application bearing No.RA-142-1989 which was allowed by this Court, vide order dated 11.09.1990 (Annexure P-2), with the following directions :-

“For the reasons stated above, this Review Application is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs.1000/-. In addition to the relief already granted, a direction is given to the respondents to allow the revised pay scale of 940-1850 to Veterinary Assistant Surgeons w.e.f. January 1, 1978 on the basis of the order of the Government as reproduced above, equating the pay scales of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons to that of Medical Officers and Dental Surgeons. The respondents would also allow consequential reliefs to the petitioners on that account.”

3(iii) In compliance to the said judgment, the veterinary officers were granted the pay scale of Rs.940-1850 and selection grade of Rs.1000-1850 @ 24% w.e.f. 01.01.1978, vide notification dated 16.03.1998 (Annexure P-3). Further, the respondent-State issued instructions dated 14.09.2009, vide which Non-Practicing Allowance was considered to be a part of pay and was made admissible to doctors appointed in the State of Punjab in the