Holding

Pensionary benefits must be calculated on the basis of the last salary drawn in 1981, and no discretionary relief is warranted due to the appellant's prolonged unauthorized absence.

Summary

Lajpat Rai Mehta, a draftsman in the Punjab Irrigation & Power Department, was on unauthorized leave from 30 April 1981 until his superannuation on 30 September 1994. He sued for a declaration that he was entitled to pension and other retiral benefits. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and granted pension benefits. The State objected, arguing that the pension should be calculated on the basis of the last salary drawn in 1981, an objection upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that, because the appellant had not drawn any salary after 1981 and had been absent without permission for 13 years, his pension must be computed on the last drawn pay and he could not claim benefits based on the revised pay scale. Considering his misconduct, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to pensionary and other retiral benefits despite a prolonged period of unauthorized leave.
On what basis should the pensionary benefits be calculated – last drawn salary or revised pay scale.
Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution in view of the appellant's misconduct.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Section 47
Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 142

Subjects

pension calculationunauthorized leaveservice lawdiscretionary jurisdictionArticle 136Article 142public exchequermisconduct

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 657

LAJPAT RAI MEHTA A
v.
-.j
SECRET ARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,
DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION & POWER,
CHANDIGARH
(Civil Appeal No. 7309 of 2008) B
DECEMBER 16, 2008

[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

SERVICE LAW· c
Pension and other retiral benefits - Basis for calculation
- HELD: Should be the last pay drawn - In the instant case,
employee remained on unauthorized leave from 30.4.1981
till 30.9.1994, the date of his superannuation - After
30.4.1981, he having not worked cannot be held to have D
earned increments or benefits on revision of scale of pay -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136 and 142.
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950:
Articles 136 and 142 - Jurisdiction under - Exercise of
- Conduct of party - Employee remaining on unauthorized E
leave for 13 years - Calculation of pensionary benefits -
Court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction is entitled
to see the conduct of parties so as to enable it to adjust
equities - It is also duty of Court to see that public exchequer
should not unnecessarily be depleted despite the fact that F
State has failed and/or neglected to initiate disciplinary
--1 proceedings against employee - Equity.
The plaintiff-appellant joined the service under the
State Government in 1959. He remained on long leave
from 1976 to1980. From 8.4.1981, he proceeded on G
earned leave for 23 days and thereafter remained on
unauthorized leave till he retired from service on
)
30.9.1994. Thereafter, the >appellant filed a suit for

- declaration that he was entitled to retrial benefits of
657 H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1f s.c9
A pension etc. The trial court dismissed the suit but the first
appellate court decreed the suit. When the decree was put
to execution, the State filed an objection u/s 47 CPC 1c
contending that retrial benefits of the appellant would be·
calculated· on the basis of the last pay drawn by him in
8 1981. The objection was rejected by the executing court
but allowed by the High Court in the revision petition filed
by the State.
In the instant appeal filed by the plaintiff, it was
contended for the appellant that he having been allowed ,...
c to retire with effect from 30.9.1994, that date should form
the basis for calculating his retrial benefits.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
'"'
HELD: 1.1. The suit centered round the question as .
to whether the appellant would be entitled to. the
D pensionary benefits keeping in view the fact that he had
worked for the qualifying period specified therefore, and
the question as to the basis on which the pensionary
benefits would be calculated did not arise for \.-
consideration therein. The declaratory relief granted by
E the appellate court could not have extended to grant of
other benefits to which the appellant was not otherwise
legally entitled. The rules prevalent for calculation of
pensionary benefits were, therefore, required to be
followed. [Para 10] [663-D-E-H;· 664-A]
F 1.2. Indisputably, the appellant was on unauthorized
absence from 30.4.1981 to 30.9.1994. He had not worked
for 13 years. The last pay was drawn by him in the year~
1981. He was not drawing any salary on the dab~ of his
superannuation. The pensionary benefits, therefore,
should be calculated only on that basis. Thereafter, he,
G having not worked, cannot be held to have earned
increments or benefit in the revised scal.e of pay. [Para
10 and 13] [663-D; 664-A-B]
1.3. Remaining on unauthorized leave for such a l
long time is a misconduct. As the State omitted to take
H·
LAJPAT RAI MEHTA v. V. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF 659
PUNJAB, DEP. OF IRRI. & POWER, CHANDIGARH

any disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, he A
obtained the benefit of grant of pension. The appellat~
i court declared his entitlement to ob~in the pensiona~
benefits only because he was allowed to superannuat~
on 30.9.1994. In any event in view of the conduct of the
appellant, this Court would not exercise its discretionary B
jurisdiction in his favour. This Court under Article 136
and/or 142 of the Constitution need not grant relief to a
litigant, although it may be lawful for it to do so. The Court
while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction is entitled
to see the conduct of the parties so as to enable it to
adjust equities. It is also the duty of the Court to see that
c
.... the public exchequer should not -unnecessarily be
depleted despite the fact that the State has failed and/or
neglected to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
appellant. [para 11, 12 and 13) [663-G; 664-C-E]
C.K. Prahhalada & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. D
2008 (8) SCALE 600 and Tanna and Modi v. CIT, Mumbai
2007 (8) SCALE 511, relied -on.
Case Law Reference:
2008 (8) SCALE 600 relied on para 13
E
2007 (8) SCALE 511 relied on para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7309 of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.7.2007 of tha
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil' F
Revision Petition No. 2764 of 2006.
Vikas Mahajan and Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni for the Appellant.
Ajay Pal for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order
\ dated 31.7.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High

- Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision
Petition No.2764 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the Civil H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S. c: R. e
~

A Revision Application filed .by the respondents herein was
allowed setting aside an order dated 9.2.2006 passed by
learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar.
3. Appellant her.ein joined the lrrigatio~ and Power
Department of the State of Punjab as a Draftsman in March
B 1959. 1-:fe was later on promoted t0 the post of Head Draftsman.
It appears that the appellant had remained on long leave in the
years 1976 to 1980. On or about 8.4.1981, although he
proceeded on earned leave for 23 days, admittedly remained
on unauthorized leave thereafter. He was not allowed to join his
c services later on. He did not join his duties till he retired from
service on 30.9.1994. He filed a suit for permanent injunction
restraining the State from interfering with his discharge of .__
duties. The said suit was dismissed. Thereafter he filed another
suit for declaration that he was entitled to retrial benefits for the
post of Head Draftsman in the shape of pension, general
D
provident fund, ex gratia payment, leave encashment, group
insurance schemes etc.
4. Indisputably, the scale of pay of the employees of the \.-

State of Punjab were revised in terms of the recommendations
of the Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1986 by a
E notification dated 21.7.1988. The aforementioned suit of the
appellant was dismissed holding that he was not entitled to any
retrial benefit. The appellate court, however, reversed the said
finding of the learned trial judge by a judgment and order dated
8.8.2000, opining :
F "I have reached at the conclusion that the learned lower
court has erred in declining the pensionary benefits to the
appellant/plaintiff assuming that the absence of an
employee from duty is automatic. Findings on issue No.1,
2 and 3 are set aside and the ~ppellant/plaintiff is ordered
G to be given pensionary benefits for tl:le qualifying service,
he has put in whil~ in service, under the respondents. The
question like leave encashment benefit shall be duly taken
care of by the respondents. If he did not have any earned 1

H
leave at his credit, that benefit of course be declined to
him. -
LAJPAT RAI MEHTA v. V. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF PUNJAB, 661
DEP. OF IRRI. & POWER, CHANDIGARH [S.S. SINHA, J.]

The suit filed by the appellant before the lower court A
-i, is, therefore .. decreed and he is declared entitled to
/
pensionary benefits, as if he has put in the required
qualifying service excluding the period of his absence."
5. An application for execution of the said decree was filed
before the Executing Court. Respondent filed an objection B
therein under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure
contending that the retiral benefits of the appellant would be
calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn by the appellant
in 1981. The said objection was rejected. As noticed
herein before, the ·Civil Revision Application filed by the State c
~
thereagainst has been allowed by reason of the impugned
judgment.
6. Before us, the State has placed a letter dated 19.9.2003
issued by the Irrigation Department and addressed to the Chief
Engineer (Canals) Irrigation Works, Punjab giving guidelines D
for computation of the retiral benefits of the appellant which
'--.(
reads as under :
"1. Sh. Lajpat Rai Mehta, D.H.D. may be paid
pensionary benefits after excluding the absence
period, although i.e. before or after .5/1981. He may E
not be paid benefits for absence period.
2. He may be paid pensionary benefits on the
average emoluments drawn by him during ten
months before 30.4.1981.

4'
_, 3. The retiree will be admissible for pension after the F
date of his superannuation i.e. 30.9.1994.
4. The matter may be investigated that why no action
has been taken by you in 13 years when Sh. Lajpat
Rai Mehta remained absent and Government have
to bear additional financial liability. The complete G
report be sent to the Govt. within two months. This
) concurrence is conveyed as per Financial
Promotion Policy and coordination Section
--lfllll
Department of Finance letter No.1/66/2003-iFPPC/
7702 dated 18.9.2003." H

-
66.2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R. ll. 1

A 7. Appellant, however, contends that he would be entitled
to the benefit of the revised pay and, thus, the pensionary >
benefits should be calculated on the following basis :

"PAY AS ON 3.4.1981 = Rs.880/- Pay on 1.1.1986 = 2000
B 3.4.86 = 2060
NOTIONAL PAY ON 1.1.1986 3.4.87 = 2130
3.4.88 =·2000
Basic Pay = Rs.880.00 3.4.89 = 2270
c D.A. = Rs.717.00 3.4.90 . = 2340
Interim Relief = Rs.132 ..00 3.4.91 = 2410
2nd Relief 10% =Rs. 88.00 3.4.92 = 2480
/ 3.4.93 = 2550
D
Rs.1818.00 3.4.94 = 2625
'>-·
"

PAY IN THE REVISED SCALE AS ON 1.1.1986
E (Rs.2000-60-2060-70-2570-75-3000-100-3500)
Date of Birth = 10.9.1936
Date of Appointment = 22.3.1957
Date of Retirement = 30.9.1994
Total Service = 37 years 6 months 1O days
F Absent Period (1.5.81 to 30.9.94 = 13 yrs. 5 month~ O days
=
Net qualifying Service 24 years 1 month 10 days = 24.11
)-
•
years .
2625 x 48.22
Pension as on 30.9.1994 = Rs. Rs.959.00
G 2 X66
Revised pension as per B/Pay +DA +Interim Relief l.R.(10%)
Service 959 1304 75 BP J
96 ~
= 2242/-
H
,,..
LAJPAT RAI MEHTA v. V. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF PUNJAB, 663
' DEP. OF IRRI. & POWER, CHANDIGARH [S.B. SINHA, J.]

Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996 = 2817.00 (Against A
1 R~.2242)"
8. Mr. Vikas Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, would submit that having regard to the directions
issued by the first appellate court, there cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that the appellant having been allowed to retire with B
effect from 30.9.1994 and only the period during which he was
on unauthorized leave having been directed to be excluded, all
,..... other benefits which were available to him as on the date of
retirement should form the basis for calculating the pensionary
and other retiral benefits payable to him. c
., Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on State of
Kera/a & Anr. v. P. V. Nee/akandan Nair & Ors. [(2005) 5 SCC
561].
9. Mr. Ajay Pal, learned counsel appearing for the State,
however, supported the impugned judgment. D
10. Indisputably, the appellant was on unauthorized
absence from 30.4.1981 to 30.9.1994. The suit, which as
noticed hereinbefore, centered round the question as to
whether he would be entitled to the pensionary benefits keeping
in, view the fact that he had worked for the qualifying period E
specified therefor. In the said suit, the question as to the basis
on which the pensionary benefits shall be calculated did not
arise for consideration. It is one thing to say that a person is
entitled to pensionary benefits having fulfilled the eligibility
criteria laid down in the statutory rules but it is another thing to
F
~ say as to on what basis the said benefit should be reckoned.

11. Appellant was not drawing any salary on the date of
his superannuation. As the State omitted to take any
disciplinary proceedings against him, he obtained the benefit
of grant of pension. Remaining on unauthorized leave for such
G
a long time is a misconduct. The appellate court declared his
entitlement to obtain the pensionary benefits only because he
) was allowed to superannuate on 30:9.1994.
...,., 12. The declaratory relief granted by the appellate court,
therefore, could not have extended grant of other benefits to H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C:R.

A which the appellant was not otherwise legally entitled to. The
Rules prevalent for calculation of pensionary benefits were,
therefore, required to be followed.
13. Appellant as noticed hereinbefore, had not worked for-
13 years. The last pay was drawn by him in the year 1981. The
B pensionary benefits, therefore, should be calculated qnly on that
basis. He, having not worked, cannot be held to have earoed
increments or benefit in the revision of scale of pay.
In any event in view of the conduct of the appellant, we do
not think that this Court should exercise its diiscretio'1ary
C jurisdiction in his favour. It is now a well settled principle of law
that this Court under Article 136 and/or 142 of the Constitution
need not grant relief to a litigant, although it may be lawful for it
to do so. {See C.K. Prahhalada & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
& Ors. [2008 (8) SCALE 600] and Tanna and Modi v~ CIT,
Mumbai [2007 (8) $CALE 511]}. The Court while exercising
0
its discretionary jurisdiction is entitled to see the conduct of the
. parties so as.to enaple .it to adjust equities. It is also the duty
of the Court fa see that the public exchequer should not
unnecessarily be depleted despite the fact that the State has
failed and/or neglected to initiate disciplinary proceeding
E against the appellant.
14. For the reasons aforementioned no relief can be
granted in favour of the appellants.
15. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
F R.P. . Appeal dismissed.