Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
RAVI MALIMATH, ACJ, JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J
SHRI RAMESHWAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) – Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 14 of 2019
For the Respondents:SHRI ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL, SHRI RANJAN SHARMA, SHRI VIKAS RATHORE, ADDL. ADVOCATES GENERAL, SHRI R.P. SINGH, SMT. SEEMA SHARMA, DY. ADVOCATES GENERAL, SHRI BALRAM SHARMA, ASGI, SHRI J.L. BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE
Pension revision for judicial officers must exclude dearness relief from basic pension when applying multipliers, as established by governmental and court directives.
Headnote:(A) Writ Petition - Revision of Pension - Directions issued under office memorandum dated 11.1.2017 for pensioners to multiply basic pension by a factor of 3.07 - Existing pension was found compliant with directions of Apex Court and Karnataka model - Merger of dearness relief with pension not to be treated as basic pension - Prior pension revisions clarified - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 5(vi))
(B) Judicial Officers - Pension fixation according to Karnataka model - Basic pension distinct from consolidated pension - Merger of dearness relief prohibiting its inclusion in basic for recalculation - Clarification of differing weights applied to basic and consolidated pensions issued by government. (Paras 5(vi), 5(vii))
Facts of the case:
The appellant superannuated as a District & Sessions Judge on 31.5.2005, with initial pension fixed at Rs. 12,125/-, later revised to Rs. 18,632/- according to government directions on pension calculation. Appellant contended pension should be multiplied by 3.07 times based on specific court orders.
Findings of Court:
The pension was fixed appropriately as per applicable rules and directives following court orders; conflicting assertions from the appellant were dismissed as unsupported by precedent or direction.
Issues: Whether the pension was correctly fixed in accordance with guidelines establishing basic and consolidated pensions, and whether the appellant's method of calculation was erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that only the basic pension is to be multiplied by the specified factor, while dearness relief must remain distinct and not affect the basic pension calculation under regulatory directives. Appeal declined as no merits presented.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment issuance and pension request (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's contentions regarding pension computation (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's findings on pension adjustment (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The appellant retired as a District & Sessions Judge. He filed a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to fix his pension by multiplying the pension amount of Rs. 18,632/- by a factor of 3.07 without deducting dearness pay from Rs. 18,632/-. His writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, he has filed the instant appeal.
Parties are referred to hereinafter as they were before the learned writ Court.
2. Facts.
2(i) Petitioner superannuated as District and Sessions Judge on 31.5.2005. At the time of retirement, he was drawing basic pay of Rs 24,850/- per month in Super Time Scale of Rs. 22850-24850.
2(ii) Petitioner’s pension was initially fixed at Rs. 12125/- w.e.f. 1.6.2005 by taking his average emoluments at Rs. 24250/- per month.
2(iii) On 8.8.2005, State of Himachal Pradesh merged 50% of the dearness relief equivalent to 50% of present pension of its employees and pensioners with their pension w.e.f. 1.4.2004.
2(iv) On 20.10.2005 respondent-State issued a letter for fixing pension of retired Judicial Officers as per Karnataka model in accordance with directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2(v) In compliance to the communication dated 20.10.2005 respondent No. 3 moved the State for revising the petitioner’s pension. Respondent No. 2 on 17.4.2006 revised petitioner’s pension from Rs.12125/- to Rs. 18,263/- on the basis of average emoluments of Rs. 36525/- (Rs. 24,350 + 12,175/- D.P.) w.e.f. 1.6.2005.
2(vi) In view of computation of one increment granted to the petitioner at the time of release of selection grade/super time scale, his pension was again revised on 6.2.2007 by respondent No. 2 from Rs. 18,263/- to Rs. 18,632/- w.e.f. 1.6.2005 by taking his average emoluments as Rs. 37,275/- (Rs. 24,850+ 12,425 D.P.).
2(vii) Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 8.10.2012 passed in I.A. No. 5 of 2009 in I.A. No. 244 in W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989 accepted the prayer of Andhra Pradesh retired Judges association to revise the existing pension of all past pensioners who had retired after 1.1.1996 but before 31.12.2005 by raising the same by a factor of 3.07 subject to minimum of 50% of revised pay scale of their respective post. On 14.7.2016, the Apex Court directed that but for States of Telegana and Andhra Pradesh, all States including State of Himachal Pradesh shall implement the order. In compliance thereto, the respondent-State issued general direction vide O.M. dated 11.1.2017. Under this O.M., the pension of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Officers retired between 1.7.1996 to 31.12.2005 was to be revised by raising the same by 3.07 times w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
2(viii) Pension of petitioner stood revised by the State as per Karnataka model from Rs. 12,125/- to Rs. 18,263/- and later to Rs.
18,632/-. Petitioner’s case is that this figure of Rs. 18,632/- which should have been multiplied by 3.07 for fixing his revised pension as per government O.M. dated 11.1.2017. However, respondent No. 4 has multiplied Rs. 12,175/- by 3.07 times and thus fixed petitioner’s pension at Rs. 37,378/-. This order was reviewed on 9.8.2017. The revised pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 38,145/- i.e. (Rs. 12,425 X3.07=Rs. 38,145).
3. Petitioner filed a writ petition praying for a direction to the State to revise his pension by treating Rs. 18,632/- as his basic pension and to multiply it by 3.07 times. His prayer was turned down by the leaned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge did not find favour with the contentions of the petitioner. The pension of the petitioner was found to be fixed in accordance with the applicable rules, directions, orders and office memorandums. His writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.
4. Contentions.
We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned
