Full Judgment
COCP No.1611 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1611 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:
29. 11.2012 Gejo ......Petitioner(s) Versus V.K.Gupta & ors......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.GPS Bal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) While allowing CWP No.3310 of 2005 vide judgment dated 13.10.2010, this Court passed the following order: “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to calculate the pension payable to the petitioner and release all admissible pensionary benefits to her within three months of the receipt of a copy of this order.
The petitioner shall be entitled to receive such benefits along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date when she retired till the date of actual payment.”
The instant contempt petition has been filed alleging disobedience of the aforesaid judgment of this Court.
Upon notice, a reply was filed on behalf of the respondents.
After considering the respective pleadings, this Court passed the following order on 28.5.2012: “The petitioner was admittedly appointed on 13.05.1968, though allegedly on part-time basis COCP No.1611 o”
2. and she retired as a regular Class-IV employee w.e.f.29.02.2004.
She has not been granted a meager basic pension of Rs.357/-, i.e., total pension of Rs.1329.12 per month.
The afore- stated pension has been determined on the basis that the petitioner worked for about 12 years only i.e.without any benefit of total service rendered by her in terms of yeaRs.Such a practice, ex-facie, amounts to exploitation of a poor labourer who was in no position to bargain for the terms and conditions of her employment.
The unilateral provision, if any, pressed into aid by the respondents can not be more sacroscent than Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, in this old age after her retirement has a fundamental right to lead a dignified and respectable life at the cost of the respondents whom she served for long 36 yeaRs.The fact of the matter is that the petitioner while serving on part-time basis from 13.02.1968 to 31.03.1996 was not allowed to seek any other employment.
Taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and fair to both the parties if at-least half of the afore- stated service period is counted towards 'qualifying service' for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits.
In this manner, the petitioner shall be deemed to have served for a period not less than 21 years on regular basis.
The retiral benefits of the petitioner be accordingly revised and released before the next date of hearing.
List on 24.09.2012.”
The respondents filed LPA No.1101 of 2012 against the COCP No.1611 o”
3. aforesaid order.
The said LPA was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 27.9.2012.
An affidavit of Ms.Lajwant Kaur Sobti Manager State Bank of Patiala, Sector-17, Chandigarh, has also been placed on record.
The relevant paragraphs of this affidavit read thus: “6.
That it is submitted that the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.5.2012 was pleased to hold that “taking into consideration totality of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and fair to both the parties if at least half of the aforesaid service period is counted towards qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits.
In this manner, the petitioner shall be deemed to have served for a period of not less than 21 years on regular basis”.
and directed that the retiral benefits of the petitioner be accordingly revised and released before the next date of hearing, being 24.9.2012.”
7. That it is submitted with all humility that against the aforesaid order dated 28.5.2012, LPA No.1101 of 2012 was filed in this Hon'ble Court.
During the couRs.of hearing of the aforesaid Letter Patent Appeal the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to direct to produce a comparative COCP No.1611 o”
4. chart depicting the calculations which according to the appellants they were liable to pay viz a viz calculations in terms of the order passed by Hon'ble Ld.
Single Judge in contempt proceedings.
Accordingly calculation sheets, one treating the qualifying service of the petitioner as 12 yeaRs.and other treating the qualifying service of the petitioner as 21 yeaRs.as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court order dated 28.5.2012 were filed.
According to the calculations regarding the payment of pension payable to the petitioner treating her qualifying service as 21 yeaRs.the same was worked out to be Rs.1329.12 (Rs.720/- as basic pension + Rs.609.12 as DA).However, at present the petitioner is being paid total pension of Rs.1441.87/- (Rs.720/- basic pension + 721.87/- as DA).It was most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Division Bench that so far as quantum of pension which is payable in the terms of order dated 28.5.2012 is concerned, the bank does not stand to pay more.
The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid LPA on 27.9.2012.
COCP No.1611 o”
5. 8.
That it is humbly submitted that on her retirement the petitioner was paid the retiral benefits viz an amount of Rs.11,234/- as gratuity on 15.3.2004, Rs.6062/- towards leave encashment on 26.5.2004, Rs.1931/- as Bonus on 10.7.2004 and Rs.6,609/- as provident fund out of which a sum of Rs.1461.92/- and Rs.600/- recoverably from her towards demand loan and festival loan were recovered and balance of Rs.4547/- was paid on 23.3.2004.
She was also paid Rs.1200/- towards fixed medical allowance and Rs.550/- as Medical bill.”
9. That in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in CWP No.3310 of 2005 dated 13.10.2010 the petitioner was paid Rs.80,934.47/- + interest amount of Rs.22946.14 (total Rs.1,13,930.61/-) & monthly pension at present @ of Rs.1441.87 (Rs.720/- basic pension and Rs.721.87 as D.A.) per month is being paid to her regularly.
It is submitted with all humility at the command of the deponent that since by treating the qualifying service of the petitioner as 21 yeaRs.the pension payable to the petitioner would come to the COCP No.1611 o”
6. same which she is being paid at present.”
10. That by treating the petitioner's qualifying service as 21 years as per directions of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.5.2012, the total gratuity amount payable to the petitioner would be Rs.29,489/-.
However, on retirement she was paid Rs.11,234/-.
In this manner an additional amount of Rs.18255/- become payable to the petitioner as gratuity.
The Chief Manager, pension, provident fund, gratuity, Head Office, State Bank of Patiala acting in the interest of justice got credited an amount of Rs.18255/- through Bank draft No.930965 dated 18.10.2012 in the account of the petitioner in account No.55110199342, maintained with Kurali Branch of the State Bank of Patiala on 27.10.2012.
Accordingly petitioner also, in token of the credit of the aforesaid amount of Rs.18255/- being difference of gratuity in compliance to the order of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 28.5.2012 in COCP No.1611 of 2011 in CWP No.3310 of 2005 issued a receipt to that effect.
The copy of the receipt is attached as Annexure RR/1.
The amount COCP No.1611 o”
7. has since been credited to her aforesaid account.
The copy of statement of the aforesaid account of the petitioner is attached as Annexure RR/2.”
11. That the respondents have got great regards of this Hon'ble Court and of all the courts of land, and they can never think of disobeying the aforesaid judgments of this Hon'ble Court or any other order/judgment of this Hon'ble Court or of any other court of the land.
They have not committed contempt of this Hon'ble Court.
However, if the Hon'ble Court comes to any other conclusion, the deponent tenders unqualified apology.”
In view of the averments made, learned counsel for the respondents has taken a categoric stand that the judgment dated 13.10.2010 passed in CWP No.3310 of 2005, and further the order dated 28.5.2012 passed in COCP No.1611 of 2011 stand fully complied with.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in this petition and the same is disposed of having been rendered infructuous.
Needless to say that if the petitioner has still any grievance, she may represent to the respondent-Authorities who shall look into the same sympathetically.
November 29, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE COCP No.1611 of 2011 8