STATE OF PUNJAB AND A.L\IR.versusJL. GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                    STATE OF PUNJAB AND A.l\IR.                                 A
                                     v.
                  JL. GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                          FEBRUARY 16, 2000

         [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.]                              B

       Service Law-Pensionary benefits-Government Notification gave
higher benefits to employees from a specified date--R.espondents who retired
prior to the specified date claimed similar benefits-High Court directed pay-
ment of all dues on the basis of the notification-On appeal Held, benefits      C
became available on a much later date by reason of change ii1 the
mies-Hence could not be given to those who retired prior to the date of the
Notification.

      Respondents were the employees of the State of Punjab who retired
before 31st March, 1985 and claimed higher pensionary benefits on the           D
basis a Government Notification which gave higher pensionary benefits to
employees retiring on or after 31st March, 1985. The High Court directed
payment ofall dues on the basis of the said Notification. Hence this appeal
by the State Government.

      Allowing these appeals, this Court                                        E

      HELD : 1. Respondents are not entitled to claim the benefits under
the Government Notification since the said benefits offered in the Notifica-
tion became available on a much later date to the retiring employees by
reason of change in rule relating to pensionary benefits, while the respon·     p
dents retired much earlier. (905-H]

      State of Punjab v. Boota Singh, (21100) 3 SCC 733, relied on.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1129 of
~~~                                                                             G
     From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.98 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11933 of 1993.

     Jayshn:e Anand, Additional Advocate General (Punjab), H.S.
Munjral, Rajiv Dutta, H.M. Singh, B. Kanta Rao, Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Ms.           H
                                  903
    904                   SUPREME COURT RFPORTS                    (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A K. Sarada Devi, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, R.K. Kapoor, S.K. Srivastava, P.
    Varma, Anis Ahmad Khan, I.P. Singh, Pankaj Kalra, Mahabir Singh, Ashok
    K. Mahajan, Vipin Gogia, Mrs. Jaspn:et Gogia, Rajiv Mehta, G.
    Sivabalamurugan, T.S. Arora, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha and              ...
    Sumit Kumar, for the appearing parties.

B         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          SABHARWAL, J. Leave granted.

          The ex-employees of State of Punjab are respondents in this appeal
C and in the connecttd 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 sanctiom:d up to the consumers price level index No. 568 will be
D   treated as dearnes~ 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
E   9th July, 1985. Tht: High Court by the impugned judgment dated 18th
    November, 1998 allowed the writ petition directing the Stat.: 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 in squarely covered by
    the decision of this Court in Dr. Asa Singh's case.

F        The decision in the case of Dr. Asa Singh has been considered and
  explained in a later decision of this Court (State of Punjab & Ors. v. Boota
  Singh & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 10674of1996 decided on 7th August, 1997).
  In this decision, it has been noticed that in Dr. Asa Singh's case, after
  dismissal of the special level petition on 13th May, 1993, the State Govem-
G ment 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
H application for clarification. It was also noticed that the decision in Dr. Asa
                 STATEv. J.L. GUPTA[SABHARWAL,J.]                         905

Singh's case had no applicability and Boota Singh's case could not be A
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
                                                                                 B
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       c
fin.ancial implication 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. v. Union of India
        & Ors. Etc., reported in (1991] 1SCR158 this Court distinguished D
        the decision in Nakara's case (supra) and held t,hat the ambit of
        that decision cannot be enlarged to cover all claim by retirees or
        demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree, ir-
        respective 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 E
        Nakara's case (supra). The latest decision is in the case of KL.
        Rathee v. 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,
                                                                              F
        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 ap-          G
peals 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.      H
    906                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2000] 1 S.C.R.
A         Before parting, we place on record our deep anguish for the un-
    avoidable litigation in this Court in the form of the present appeals at the
    instance of the State of Punjab/appdlants. The decision in Boota Singh's
    case had been rendered more than a yi::ar earlier than the impugned
    judgment of the High Court. It is a matter of regret that Boota Singh
B   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 case, allowi.:d the writ
    petitions. Tht explanation that Boota Singh 's case d(;cision 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 particulady when the State of Punjab itself was the appellant in
C   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, wt allow the appeals, set aside the judg-
D   ment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petitions. The parties are,
    however, Itft to bear their own costs.

    A.O.                                                      Appeals allowed