http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Special Leave Petition (civil) 8006 of 1999

PETITIONER:

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

J.L.GUPTA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2000

BENCH:

S.S.Ahamad, Y.K.Sabhawal

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

(With Civil Appeal Nos.............of 2000 [Arising

out of SLP(C) Nos.11424, 12136, 12866, 13606, 16702, 17569,

18381, 8008, 8012 and 8017 of 1999])

J U D G M E N T

SABHARWAL J.

Leave granted

The ex-employees of State of Punjab are respondents in

this appeal and in the connected appeals. All of them

retired from the service prior to 31st March, 1985. Their

pensionary benefits were calculated as per the rules

prevalent at the time of their retirement. By a

notification/order dated 9th July, 1985 issued by Government

of Punjab, Department of Finance, it was inter alia decided

that the dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance

sanctioned up to the consumers price level index no.568 will

be treated as dearness pay for the purposes of pensionary

benefits, i.e., for calculating pension, gratuity/DCRG,

internal gratuity in respect of the employees retired on or

after 31st March, 1985. Since the respondents were not

given the benefit of the aforesaid notification, they filed

a writ petition in the High Court claiming the benefits

conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985. The

High Court by the impugned judgment dated 18th November,

1998 allowed the writ petition directing the State of Punjab

to pay all dues to the writ petitioners on the basis of the

order dated 9th July, 1985 noticing that the question

involved in the case is squarely covered by the decision of

this Court in Dr.Asa Singh's case.

The decision in the case of Dr.Asa Singh has been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

considered and explained in a later decision of this Court

(State of Punjab & Ors. V. Boota Singh & Anr., Civil

Appeal No.10674 of 1996 decided on 7th August, 1997). In

this decision, it has been noticed that in Dr. Asa Singh's

case, after the dismissal of the special leave petition on

13th May, 1993, the State Government sought to reopen the

matter by filing an interlocutory application before the

High Court for clarification. The clarification application

was dismissed by the High Court and the judgment of the High

Court was upheld by this Court holding that since the main

judgment had become final, the question could not be

reagitated through mode of interlocutory application for

clarification. It was also noticed that the decision in Dr.

Asa Singh's case had no applicability and Boota Singh's case

could not be decided in the same fashion as Dr. Asa Singh's

case because the challenge in the appeal was to the main

judgment of the High Court and not to any order passed on

clarification application.

In Boota Singh's case it has also been held that the

benefit conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985

can be claimed by those who retire after the date stipulated

in the notification and those who have retired prior to the

stipulated date in the notification are governed by

different rules. They are governed by the old rules, i.e.,

the rules prevalent at the time when they retire. The two

categories of persons are governed by different sets of

rules. They cannot be equated. The grant of additional

benefit has financial implications and the specific date for

the conferment of additional benefits cannot be considered

arbitrary. It was further held that: "In the case of

Indian Ex-Services League & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Etc. reported in (1991(1) SCR(158)this Court distinguished

the decision in Nakara's case (supra)and held that the ambit

of that decision cannot be enlarged to cover all claim by

retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to

every retiree, irrespective of the date of retirement even

though the emoluments for the purpose of computation of

pension be different. We need not cite other subsequent

decisions which have also distinguished Nakara's

case(supra). The latest decision is in the case of K.L.

Rathee Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997(4) Scale 384) where

this Court, after referring to various judgments of this

Court, has held that Nakara's case cannot be interpreted to

mean that emoluments of persons who retired after a notified

date holding the same status, must be treated to be the

same. The respondents are not entitled to claim benefits

which became available at a much later date to retiring

employees by reason of changes in the rules relating to

pensionary benefits."

The controversy involved in the present appeal and

connected appeals is squarely covered by the aforesaid

decision. The respondents are thus not entitled to claim

benefits under the notification dated 9th July, 1985 since

the said benefits became available on a much later date to

the retiring employees by reason of change in rules relating

to pensionary benefits. In this view, the judgment of the

High Court cannot be sustained.

Before parting, we place on record our deep anguish

for the unavoidable litigation in this Court in the form of

the present appeals at the instance of the State of

Punjab/appellants. The decision in Boota Singh's case had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

been rendered more than a year earlier than the impugned

judgment of the High Court. It is a matter of regret that

Boota Singh's decision was not brought to the notice of the

High Court with the result that the High Court, on the basis

of Dr. Asa Singh's case, allowed the writ petitions. The

explanation that Boota Singh's decision was not reported and

it could not be brought to the notice of the counsel and,

therefore, could not be cited before the High Court, shows a

total casual approach particularly when the State of Punjab

itself was the appellant in the said case. Such casual

approach results in unnecessary litigation and waste of time

besides incurring of unnecessary expense and waste of public

money. We can only express a hope that in future litigants

such as State Governments would be more careful.

For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeals, set

aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ

petitions. The parties are, however, left to bear their own

costs.