Holding

The State and its officers must recompute and pay the petitioner's pension as directed by the earlier Supreme Court mandamus, considering his promotions, and any non‑compliance will attract contempt and exemplary costs.

Summary

The petitioner, a former member of the Bihar Education Service, sought enforcement of a 1971 Supreme Court mandamus directing the State to compute his pension based on his promotions to Class II and Class I. Despite the Chief Minister’s orders in 1974, the State computed his pension as if he retired from Class I only, ignoring the earlier promotions, and failed to issue a payment order. The petitioner returned to the Supreme Court, alleging deliberate harassment and seeking completion of the correct pension computation, payment of arrears with interest, and exemplary costs. The Court held that the State and its officers are bound to recompute the pension according to the earlier judgment, include arrears from the date of retirement, and pay interest, imposing a deadline of 31 July 1983. Failure to comply will attract contempt proceedings and the Court awarded Rs 25,000 as exemplary costs to the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether the State is legally bound to recompute the petitioner's pension in accordance with the earlier Supreme Court mandamus, considering his promotions.
Whether the State's failure to implement the mandamus constitutes contempt of court.
Whether exemplary costs may be awarded for intentional harassment by State officials.
Interpretation of the Bihar Pension Rules regarding pension eligibility for members of the Bihar Education Service.
Whether the State must pay arrears of pension with interest from the date of retirement.

Legislation cited

Bihar Pension Rules, 1950s. Rule 46, s. Rule 5, s. Rule 76
Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Service Codes. Rule 76

Subjects

pensionmandamuscontemptexemplary costsBihar Pension Ruleseducation serviceArticle 32writ petitionstate liability

Judgment

DEVAKI NANDAN PRASAD
A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

April 22, 1983.

ID.A. OF.SAi .AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
B

Writs issued by Court must be complied with protnptly-Persons responsi-
ble for non-compliance liable for contempt action-Ex~mplary costs awarded for
harassment.

In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1971] Supp. S.C.R. c
634 decided on May 4, 1971 the Court had, after con1ing to the conclusion
that the petitioner hereiri- was a member of the Bihar Ed_ucation Servie<:
entitled to penslon under r. 5 of the Bihar Pension Rules, issued a writ· of
mandamus directing the State Government to consider the claim of the
petitioner rOr payment or pension according- to .Jaw. Inspite or the petitioner
having approached the Chief Minister for implementation of the- ntandamus it
was not until 1974 that the concerned file. reached th~ Chief Minister and orders
D
were passed by him that the petitioner should be deemed to belong to Class I
post·of Selection Grade from January 1, 1952 and that his claim• should be
settled within a month. Three years after this direCtion of the Chief Minister
the petitioner received intimation that his pension had been comptited o'n the
basis that he had retired from Class II[ service. Further representations
having.failed to evoke any response frOm the State- Government, the petitioner E
approached the.Court ollce a:gain.

Allowing the petition,

HELD : The respondent State and all its officers are bound to compute
pension of the petitioner. not only on the footing that he is a member of the
Bihar Education Service but also on the footing he was promoted to Class II
F
by the date mentioned in the earlier judgment and from January l, 1952 to
Class I as rightly held by the Chief Minister. Officers dealing with the pension
case of the petitioner appear to have scant regard for the decision of the
Supreme Court in fhat both the promotion to Class Il and further promotion
to Class I from ~eemcd date"s Were ignored and peD.sion was computed on the
basis that the petitioner retired from Class IU service. The State cannot be G
permitted to play ducks and drakes with a solemn deci•ion of this Court. The
State ·arid the subordinate o~cers responsible for computation of pension of
the petitioner are directed to complete this computation bY, July 31, 1983 and by
that date pension payment order correct a.pd consistent with the direction
herein given shall be issued without fail. The State Is also· directed to pay the
arrears of pension on the' aforesaid computatjon within the same period with H
interest at 6 per cent from January 10, 1967. As the otficero of the State have
harassed the petitioner which is intentional, deliberate and motivated,. exemp•
lacy costs quantified at Rs. 25,000 shall be pai~ to. the petitioner ~fore July
SUPkEMB COUllT llBPOllTS h983j 2 s.c.R.. ·
31, 1983. The slightest failure-or deviation from the . .time schedule in carryina
out this mandiimus will be uncluestionably visited with contempt action.
A [924 H; 92S A; 92; C-H; 926 A;)

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 3053 of 1980.

Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.
B
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, S.K. Sinha, S:K. Verma, A.M. Singhvi and
Laxmi Kant Pandey for the Appellant.

D. Goburdhan for the Respondent. ·

C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DESAI, J. A pensioner since 16 years is knocking at the doors
of the conrt of justice and the executive in search of his hard earned
pension and, is 'being rebuffed by those who would meet the same
fate by the passage of time and yet with his meagre resources, he has
D . been dragged to the apex ·court for the second time after a lapse of
12 years 4uring which abominably long p~riod the mandamus of
this Court has been treated as a scrap of paper. What a pity, and
what helplessness ?

The facts relevant to the disposal of this petition under . Art.
E
32 of the Constitution are set out in details in Deokinandan Prasad
v. State of Bihar & Ors.( 1) and therefore, need not be recapitulated
· here. A Constitution Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice
Mr. Sikri issued a mandamus in the writ petition filed by the present
petitioner which reads as under :
F
"The order dated August 5, 1966 ·declaring under
r. 76 of the Service Code that the petitioner has ceased
to be in government employ is set aside and quashed.
The order dated June 12, 1968 stating that under r. 46
of the Pension Rules, the Department is unable to grant
G the petitioner pension is also set aside and quashed. As
the petitioner himself claims that he, has been retired
from service on superannuation, a writ of mandamus
will be issued to the respondents directing them to con·
H sider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension ··-t-
according to law."

(I) [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 634.
b~AtiNANDAN ¥. BIHAll (besa/, J.)

The opinion of the Court was rendered ou May 4, 1971 and since
then petitioner is being pushed from pillar to post by various depart· A
ments of the State of Bihar ultimately compelling him to knock at
the door of this Court.

It may be mentioned in passing that the petitioner joined
service on September 1, 1928 and admittedly he has retired on, B
superannuation on January 10, 1967. He is entitled to pension
under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The dispute is whether the
petitioner is a member of the Bihar Education Service and what
ought to be the .method of computation of his pension ? On the
first point, the matter is no more res integra because the Constitution
Bench held that a reference to r. 5 of the Pension Rules shows that
c
the officers mentioned therein are entitled to pension. It was further
I
held that there is no controversy that .the petitioner is an officer in
the Education Department of the Bihar Education Service, and this
department is shown at item No. 3 of the Schedule to r. 5. Therefore,
the controversy is concluded by decision between the parties that D
the petitioner is a member of Bihar Education Service and that
under r. 5 of the Pension Rules, he is entitled to pension.

After the mandamus was issued by this Court, the petitioner
approached amongst others the then Chief Minister of Bihar late
Shri Kedar Pandey for implementing and giving effect to the manda· E
mus, issued by the Supreme Court. The Chief Minister directed
that even though more than two years have elapsed since the
issuance of the mandamus of the Chief Minister himself directed ten
months prior to June 25, 1973 for payment of the claim of the
petitioner as soon as possible and had insisted upon a weekly pro·.
gress report on the processing of the file to be submitted to him,
F
yet even the Chief Minister recorded his helplessness that he neither
received the weekly report nor the mandamus has been implemented
nor even the file was submitted to the Chief Minister for his perusal.
If this be plight of the Chief Minister of a popularly elected govern· G
ment what to talk of the lesser fly and what tears can be shed for a
man in position of the petitioner who having rendered service for
nearly 40 years was chasing the mirage for a paltry pension. The
Chief Minister app~ehended that it is quite likely that not only the
officers responsible for ,this mess but even the State Government H
may be called upon by the Supreme Court to explain the disregard
of the man4amus. He then piade a peremptory ·order that the file
be submitt«l to him for order.
•· Su!>RliMB COURT. Rt!POkTS lt9MJ 2 s.c.a.
; ~othilig moved as is the sad experience that nothing moves
A unless like the law of inertia sonie outside force acts upon it and
pritsthe·file in motion. What that ·outside force is we need not
dilate. Ultimately, -the file reached the Chief Minist~r in 1974 on·
being called by him. There is the long preamble setting out the
history of litigation, the injustice done to the petitioner, the utter
lethargy and apthy of the officers concerned and then the Chief
Minister proceeded to dispose ·of the claim of the petitioner con-.
sjstent with the mandamus issued by this Court. ·

The material portion which would help us in disposing of the
present petitio!l recites that the petitioner shall be treated in Class
II posts ofBihar Education Service since his promotion and since
• I
1.1.1952 he should be deemed to belong to Class I posfof S~lection
Grade according to. his seniority or from .the date of direct appoint-
ment which deprived the petitioner of equal opportunity, he was
fully entitled to. ' But the note is overflowing with the courtesy of
the. Chief Minister in that he proceeded to request the Education
D
Minister that for the ends of justice, a phraseology to which the
courts are accustomed, the petitioner should be paid off his. claim
. within a month for which any senior officer of the Education Depart-
ment be made responsible. Undue delay has been made in' the
implementation o(ihe direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
E I would never like that Shri Prasad be compelled again to go to
Court.'. What a wishful thinking. In that Mr. Prasad has been
forced to come back to this Court and since then the then Chief
Minister bas left this.world.

The resume the narration, petitioner received a letter dated.
F. February 6, 1976-3 years after the direction given by the Chief
Minister-that his pension case has been finalised and pension pay·
ment order of Rs. 156.55 ·p.m. and gratuity payment order of
Rs. 5,850 are nuder issue. It would appear at a glance that officers.
dealing with the pension case appears to have scant regard for the.
G decision of the Supreme Court in that both the promotion to Class.
II and further promotion to Class I from deemed dates were ignored.
and pension was computed on the basis as if petitioner retired in
Class HI. All the representation of the petitioner thereafter failed
to evoke Both a sympathetic response and a just decision and
therefore the petitioner is back to square one.
·.
The r~pondent-State and all its officers are bound to compute
pension of tho petitioner not only on the footing that he is a memb•r
DBVAll'.INANDA.N v. BIHAR (Desai, J.)

of the Bihar Education Service but also on the footing that he was
promoted to Class II by the date mentionea in the earlier judgment A
and from 1.1.1952 to Class I as rightly held by the Chief Minister.
Nothing was pointed out to us by Mr. ·Goburdhan to hold to the
coqtrary nor can the State be permitted to play ducks and
drakes with a solemn decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court. B
To give fffect to the mandamus of this Court, the respondent•
State shall proceed to compute the salary payable to the petitioner
·from the date he was promoted Jo Class II Service and on the assump-
tion that he was functioning in Class II in the salary scale then admis·
sible to him equivalent to Class II Grade in Bih&r Education Service.
c
This .must commence from ·the date from which be was promoted as
set out in the earlier judgment as Deputy Inspector of Schools at
Seraikela. In computing the salary for the purpose of computation
Class II salary.~cale .then prevalent for t.he post shall be taken up and
the petitioner is deemed to have been put in that scale. Yearly incre· D
ments are added till 1.1.I 952 when he must be deemed to have .been
promoted as admitted by the Chief Minister to Class I post in Bihar
Education Service. Same process is to be repeated by the respon·
dent-State in that the then prevalent Class I scale must be held
admissible to the petitioner from January l, 1952. He must be
deemed to have been put in the scale and his annual increments to
be worked out. If in the process he is entitled to Selection Grade,
the same must be worked out and'this computation must be brought
down to !0.1.1967 when the petitioner retired on superannuation
from service. On this computation of salary his pension shall be
computed under the relevant'rules of the Bihar Pension Rules as F
liberalised from time to time till 1967 and his pension must be
determined as on 10.1.1967 on the aforementioned computatio~
chart.

The State and the subordinate officers responsible for this work
G
are directed by a writ of mandamus to complete this computation by
July 31, 1983 and by that date pension payment order correct and
consistent with the direction herein given shall be issued without
fail to the petitioner. The State is also directed by a mandamus· of K
this Court to pay· the arrears of pension on the afore-mentioned com-
putation within the same period with interest at 6% from 10.1.67.
As the officers of the State have harassed the petitioner which we
.SUPllllMB COU!lT REPORTS (1983] 2 s.c.R•

feel is intentional, deliberate and motivated, therefore, we are con·
A strained to award exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 25,000 to be
·paid to the petitioner before July 31, 1983. ·

We propose to leave no one in doubt that the slightest failure
or deviation in the time schedule in carrying out this mandamus will
B be unquestionably visited with contempt action.

H.L.O. Petition al/owed.

c