CWP/2710/2017 of RAMESHWAR SHARMA Vs STATE OF HP on 31 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLACWP No. 2710 of 2017.

Reserved on : 19th December, 2018.

Decided on : 31st December, 2018.

Rameshwar Sharma …..Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P. & others ....Respondents.

Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1] Yes.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Through, the instant petition, the petitioner seeksquashing of Annexure P-12, and, of Annexure P-13.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The afore annexures, comprise, the, pensionpayment orders, prepared by the authorities concerned, andhence, fix the pension disburseable to the petitioner. Theafore prayer for quashing of the afore annexures, is, anvilledupon, Annexure P-8, (a) Annexure whereof is issued inpursuance to the directions rendered by the Hon'ble ApexCourt, in IA No.339, and, in 336 in WP No. 1022/1989, the aptconspicuous underlined portion, of, the afore annexure,stands, extracted hereinafter:- “5.Now, therefore, in compliance todirections dated 14.07.2016 of the Hon'bleSupreme Court of India passed n I.A. No.339 and336 in WP No. 1022/1989, the Governor, HimachalPradesh is pleased to implement the order dated08.10.2012 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in IANo.5 of 2009 in IA No.244 in writ petition (C) NO.1022/1989 in respect of H.P. State Judicial Officersas under:-

(i) The Pensions of the Himachal PradeshJudicial Ofcers retired between the period01.07.1996 to 31.12.2005 as fxed in terms of-Government letter No. Fin (Pen) A(3)4/2005

dated 20th October 2005 will be revised byraising the same by 3.07 times, w.e.f.01.01.2006.

Provided, above revised pension shall besubject to minimum of 50% of the revised payscales applicable from 01.01.2006 corresponding-to the prerevised pay scales from which such”pensioners had retired/died in harness.

(b) whereunder, a, peremptory diktat is enjoined, upon, therelevant authorities, to, vis-a-vis, the officers serving, in, theHimachal Pradesh judiciary, rather hence make the aptrevision(s), in their pension, hence, by meteing deference, to,the coinage “by raising the same by 3.07 times, w.e.f.01.01.2006”. The trite conundrum which besets, this Court,for, its apt resting, is centered, upon, (c) a comparativereading of the afore underlined portion of Annexure P-8, vis-a-vis, Annexure R-2, appended with the reply of therespondents, annexure whereof, is issued, vis-a-vis, allpensioners/family pensioners, in category whereof, thepetitioner uncontrovertedly falls, (d) and, whereunder, in, theapt hereinafter extracted portion thereof, a, mandate is cast qua, vis-a-vis, the afore category of pensioners, the requisitecalculations for hence fixing, their pensions, rather enjoiningexclusion, of, merged dearness relief of 50%, reiteratedly,from, the apt calculations. The apt portion of Annexure R-2,annexure whereof, is, an office memorandum, issued on 14[th]October, 2009, stands extracted hereinafter:- “Where the existing pension in (I) above includesthe effect of merger of 50% of dearness relief w.e.f.01.04.2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be re-calculated afterexcluding the merged dearness relief of 50% fromthe pension.”

3. Even though, the petitioner, has, contended withvigour before this Court (i) that the afore extracted portion,of, Annexure P-8, rather warranting, the, strictest absolutecompliance therewith, (ii) given it being issued in consonancewith the verdict pronounced, by the Hon'ble Apex Court.However, for the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, hiscontention, is, both frail, and, feeble, given (a) the verdict ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court, as, directed to be put into force,through, the office memorandum, embodied in Annexure P-8,

being rendered in the year 2012, (b) whereas, the aforeextracted unfoldments, as, occur in Annexure R-2, beingissued in the year 2009, hence visibly earlier therewith, (c)thereupon, the verdict pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court,and, as embodied in Annexure P-6/T, was, obviously requiredto make imperative disclosures, qua all the effect(s) thereofrather being borne in mind, by the Hon'ble Apex Court,(d) alsoechoings were, to, occur therein, qua the Hon'ble Apex Courtalso making directions, qua the apt hereinabove extractedportion, of Annexure R-2, neither being enjoined to be bornein mind, nor compliance therewith, being required to bemeted by the authorities concerned, in theirs, drawingpension/pension payment orders, of judicial officers serving inthe Himachal Pradesh judiciary, reiteratedly, emphasisngly,hence, in, the authorities rather recalculating, the, appositepensionary benefits, in, compliance therewith. The effect ofevident afore reticences therein, hence, constrains this Courtto conclude, that, the all unfoldments borne in Annexure R-2remaining alive, and, acquiring force, (i) and, the pensionpayment orders, as, prepared by the authorities concerned, and, as embodied in Annexure P-12 and P-13, rather standingvalidly drawn in consonance therewith, (ii) thereupon, toavoid rendition of a decision, in conflict therewith, and, also topreclude rendition, of a, decision per incuriam therewith,(iii)the might of the apt portion extracted hereinabove ofAnnexure R-2, also acquires its relevant command, and, clout,and, as a corollary thereof, the impugned annexures, do not,warrant theirs being quashed and set aside.

4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in theinstant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. All pendingapplications also stand disposed of. No costs.

(Sureshwar Thakur)

31[st] December, 2018. (jai)

Judge.