PETITIONER: R.R. BHANOT Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT04/01/1994 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) CITATION: 1994 AIR 1531 1994 SCR (1) 1 1994 SCC (2) 406 JT 1994 (1) 1 1994 SCALE (1)14 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J.- Special leave granted.
2. R.R. Bhanot, the appellant herein, attained the age of
superannuation on December 31, 1970. Till-date his post-
retiral benefits including pension have not been settled.
He has been running from pillar to post and has been
shuttling between the two States of Himachal Pradesh and
Punjab for over two decades. Total apathy on the part of
the officers concerned, has brought untold misery and
hardship to the appellant. He filed a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the Punjab
and Haryana High Court, seeking appropriate directions to
the authorities concerned for the release of pension,
gratuity etc. due to him under the rules. It is unfortunate
that the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine.
This appeal by way of special leave is against the order of
the High Court.
3. The appellant was born on January 1, 1913. He entered
the service of the erstwhile State of Punjab as Sectional
Officer (Overseer) on September 30, 1937. He was promoted
to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer on December 10, 1959.
4. On the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab,
the appellant was provisionally allocated to the State of
Himachal Pradesh with effect from November 1, 1966. The
appellant joined the State of Himachal Pradesh but at the
same time represented before the Union of India against his
allocation to the said State.
5. The Himachal Pradesh Government prematurely retired the
appellant from service by notification dated March 20, 1969
with effect from the afternoon of May 14, 1968. The
appellant, at that time, was on deputation with the
Development Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla and was
posted as Assistant Engineer, Development, Una. The
appellant challenged the said order by way of writ petition
before the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Bench, Shimla. A
learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ
petition and quashed the order dated March 20, 1969
prematurely retiring the appellant from service. The
operative part of the High Court judgment dated September
29, 1969 is as under:
“After the matter was argued at great length,
Shri Malhotra, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, was able to bring to my notice an
order passed, pending this writ petition, by
the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs, New Delhi on May 19, 1969 stating
that with effect from November 1, 1966 the
petitioner, among others, was deemed to have
been allotted to the State of Punjab. This
order was passed in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 82 of
the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. By
reason of the said provision it was the
Central Government which could finally
determine the State to which the officers
concerned were allotted. In view of this
order, which has been passed by the Central
Government, Shri Chhabil Dass, learned counsel
for the State of Himachal Pradesh, fairly
concedes that the order retiring the
petitioner from service on completion of 55
years did not
409
survive. It is hence quashed. In the
circumstances the parties will bear their own
costs.”
6. It is thus obvious that the representation of the
appellant against his provisional allocation to the State of
Himachal Pradesh was accepted and as a consequence by the
order dated May 19, 1969 issued by the Government of India
in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section
82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the appellant was
finally allocated to the State of Punjab with effect from
November 1, 1966.
7. After the High Court set aside the premature retirement
of the appellant, he represented before the Engineer-in-
Chief PWD, Himachal Pradesh and also the State Government
for payment of the arrears of his salary and also for
further posting as a consequence of the High Court judgment.
It seems that the authorities in the State of Himachal
Pradesh did not take any action on the ground that the
appellant having been finally allocated to the State of
Punjab, it was for the later to look into the grievance of
the appellant. There is nothing on the record to show as to
whether the State of Himachal Pradesh issued any order
directing the appellant to approach the State of Punjab for
further posting in the said State. It seems that the
appellant did not, on his own, approach the Punjab
Government for joining the duties in the said State as a
consequence of the order of the Government of India finally
allocating him to the State of Punjab. Meanwhile the
appellant attained the age of 58 years on December 30, 1970.
Thereafter the appellant sent various representations to the
authorities in the State of Punjab as well as the State of
Himachal Pradesh for grant of pension and other post-retiral
benefits. The appellant was finally informed by
Engineer-in-Chief H.P. PWD, Shimla by his letter dated
January 31, 1981 that he should approach the Chief Engineer,
Punjab PWD (B & R) Branch, Patiala for payment of his
pension and gratuity. The appellant was further informed
that he should approach the Agriculture Production
Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh for final payment of
his general provident fund. Thereafter the appellant sent a
legal notice dated June 21, 1983 through an advocate to all
the authorities concerned in the two States of Punjab and
Himachal Pradesh. The Accountant-General Punjab, Chandigarh
informed the appellant by his letter dated September 9, 1983
that nothing could be done in respect of his pension and
other post-retiral benefits till the time the pension papers
are received by the Accountant-General Punjab from the
department concerned of the Punjab Government. No action
having been taken by any of the authorities in the two
States of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, the appellant finally
approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for relief. As
mentioned above the High Court dismissed the writ petition
of the appellant in limine.
8. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State
of Punjab and the Chief Engineer, PWD (B & R Branch) Punjab,
Patiala. In para 9 of the counter-affidavit the stand taken
by the State of Punjab is as under:
410
“That in reply to this Para, it is submitted
that the petitioner was allocated to the State
of Himachal Pradesh, w.e.f. November 1, 1966.
He was retired by the Himachal Pradesh
Government, vide order dated March 20, 1969,
w.e.f. May 14, 1968, when the Hon’ble High
Court at Shimla, vide order dated September
29, 1969 set aside the above order on the
ground that Union of India, vide their letter
dated May 19, 1969 had allocated him to Punjab
State, he should have come to Punjab.
As admitted by the petitioner in para 7 of the
petition, he did not join in the Punjab State.
The Government of Punjab, therefore, had
nothing to do with his pension case which was
returned.”
9. We are of the view that the stand taken by the Punjab
Government is wholly unjustified. As stated above the order
dated March 20, 1969 prematurely retiring the appellant from
service was quashed by the Himachal Bench of the Delhi High
Court by its judgment dated September 29, 1969. As a
consequence the appellant continued in service till December
31, 1970 when he attained the age of superannuation. It is
not disputed that the appellant was finally allocated to the
State of Punjab with effect from November 1, 1966. The net
result would be that the appellant shall be deemed to be
continuously serving the State of Punjab with effect from
November 1, 1966. He had joined service in the erstwhile
State of Punjab on September 30, 1937. On March 20, 1969
when he was prematurely retired by the State of Himachal he
had already served the Government for about 32 years. He
was undoubtedly entitled to the grant of pension and other
postretiral benefits. Simply because the appellant failed
to submit joining report to the State of Punjab after the
judgment of the Himachal Bench of Delhi High Court, he could
not be denied his right to pension and other benefits to
which he was entitled on his attaining superannuation. It
was for the State of Himachal Pradesh to have reinstated the
appellant in service after the High Court judgment and
thereafter relieved him to join the State of Punjab. In any
case the appellant, having been finally allocated to the
State of Punjab, it is the State of Punjab which has to give
pension and other retiral benefits to the appellant.
10. We, therefore, order and direct as under:
(1) The Himachal Pradesh Bench of Delhi High
Court quashed the premature retirement of the
appellant by its judgment dated September 29,
1969. The appellant shall be deemed to be
working with the State of Himachal Pradesh
till September 30, 1969. We direct the State
of Himachal Pradesh through its Chief
Secretary and the Secretary, PWD to pay the
arrears of salary due to the appellant till
September 30, 1969 within two months from the
receipt of this judgment.
(2) Since the appellant did not join service
with the State of Punjab from October 1, 1969
to December 31, 1970, he shall not be entitled
to any salary for the said period. The State
of Punjab shall treat the said period to be
leave of the kind due to the appellant. The
appellant shall be
411
deemed to have been retired from service on
December 31, 1970 when he attained the age of
superannuation.
(3) The State of Himachal Pradesh through
the Secretary PWD and the Agriculture
Production Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh,
Shimla are directed to send the personal file
and other record pertaining to the appellant
to the Chief Engineer, PWD (B & R Branch),
Punjab, Patiala. All the records and files
which are necessary to finalise the post-
retiral benefits of the appellant shall be
sent by the Himachal authorities to the Punjab
authorities.
(4) The Chief Engineer PWD (B & R Branch),
Patiala, the Secretary to Government PWD (B &
R Branch), Punjab, Chandigarh and the
Accountant-General Punjab, Chandigarh are
directed to finalise the pension case of the
appellant within two months of the receipt of
this order. All the arrears of the pension
and other post-retiral benefits shall be paid
to the appellant within one month thereafter.
(5) The arrears of pension shall be paid to
the appellant with interest at the rate of 12%
per annum; and
(6) we further direct the State of Punjab
through the Secretary to Government PWD (B & R
Branch), Chandigarh and Chief Engineer (B & R
Branch), Patiala to pay a sum of Rs 50,000 to
the appellant within two weeks of the receipt
of this judgment. The amount shall be
adjusted at the time of making the final
payment of arrears of pension to the
appellant.
11. The appeal is allowed in the above terms with costs.
We quantify the costs as Rs 10,000. The cost to be paid
half and half by the States of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh.
412