Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48209 (PNJ)

KIRPAL SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

CWP/1871/2008 · 2025-05-16

Aman Chaudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-1871-200 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 1114 Kirpal Singh and others State of Punjab and CORAM: HON'BLE MR. Present : None for the petitioner Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petition for directing the respondents to grant Dearness Allowance to the petition and quashing of order dated 13.09.2007 wherein it has been rejected that in absence of statutory right and the scheme having been repealed w.e.f. 01.06.2003, the claim cannot be accepted. 2. The petitioner Aided Schools and retired Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools Retirement Benefits Scheme, 1992, which made effective w.e. the said date were to opt for the same and the petitioners as such exercise their option and adopted the 3. Reference has been made to Bench in Samdhershi Kumar Bed another, CWP- 2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kirpal Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** None for the petitioners. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petition for directing the respondents to grant Dearness Allowance to the petitioners as is apparent from para 2 of the writ petition and quashing of order dated 13.09.2007 wherein it has been rejected that in absence of statutory right and the scheme having been repealed w.e.f. the claim cannot be accepted. The petitioners working in the Punjab and retired on attaining the age of Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools Retirement Benefits , which made effective w.e.f. 05.02.1987 were to opt for the same and the petitioners as such exercise their option and adopted the Scheme. Reference has been made to the judgments rendered by the Division Samdhershi Kumar Bedi and others vs. State of Punjab and -11553-2004, decided on 27.09.2005 and - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1871-2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.05.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. Prayer made in the present petition for directing the respondents to petitioners as is apparent from para 2 of the writ petition and quashing of order dated 13.09.2007 wherein it has been rejected that in absence of statutory right and the scheme having been repealed w.e.f. working in the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised on attaining the age of superannuation in view of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools Retirement Benefits f. 05.02.1987, those in service on or after were to opt for the same and the petitioners as such exercise their the judgments rendered by the Division i and others vs. State of Punjab and 2004, decided on 27.09.2005 and Sukhwant Singh and .2025 Prayer made in the present petition for directing the respondents to petitioners as is apparent from para 2 of the writ petition and quashing of order dated 13.09.2007 wherein it has been rejected that in absence of statutory right and the scheme having been repealed w.e.f. Privately Managed Recognised in view of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Aided Schools Retirement Benefits , those in service on or after were to opt for the same and the petitioners as such exercise their the judgments rendered by the Division i and others vs. State of Punjab and Sukhwant Singh and ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1871-200 others vs. State of Punjab and others, wherein this issue has been decided, whereof reads thus: “In view of the above, we allow these writ petitions. The letter dated 16.07.2003 (Annexure P9) is hereby quashed. All the petitioners who fall within the erstwhile 1992 scheme i.e. they were in service on 05.02.87 and had opt held entitled to the grant of pension under the aforesaid Scheme. Let the pensionary benefits be released to the petitioners and all the other similarly situated employees of the aided schools irrespective of whether they have benefits be released within a period of two months from today.” 4. Relevant para of “In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to release pension of the petitioners at par with their counter parts in the Government and grant them the benefit of dearness pay at par with their counter parts i Government. The dearness allowance instalments are also required to be at par with the Government employees. We also direct that no recovery from the petitioners should be effect as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCT 668. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 5. In that the respondents shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioner note of the aforesaid judgments uninfluenced by the reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 6. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their 2008 (O&M) others vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP-6090 wherein this issue has been decided, against which no SLP was filed, whereof reads thus:- “In view of the above, we allow these writ petitions. The letter dated 16.07.2003 (Annexure P9) is hereby quashed. All the petitioners who fall within the erstwhile 1992 scheme i.e. they were in service on 05.02.87 and had opt held entitled to the grant of pension under the aforesaid Scheme. Let the pensionary benefits be released to the petitioners and all the other similarly situated employees of the aided schools irrespective of whether they have retired before or after 31.05.2003. Let the benefits be released within a period of two months from today.” elevant para of Sukhwant Singh “In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to release pension of the petitioners at par with their counter parts in the Government and grant them the benefit of dearness pay at par with their counter parts i Government. The dearness allowance instalments are also required to be at par with the Government employees. We also direct that no recovery from the petitioners should be effect as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case o State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCT 668. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” In view of the above, learned State counsel, on instructions, s that the respondents shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioner note of the aforesaid judgments, expeditiously, uninfluenced by the order impugned in the present case eve the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are their interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of - 2- 6090-2007, decided on 03.05.2007, against which no SLP was filed, relevant “In view of the above, we allow these writ petitions. The letter dated 16.07.2003 (Annexure P9) is hereby quashed. All the petitioners who fall within the erstwhile 1992 scheme i.e. they were in service on 05.02.87 and had opted for the pension scheme are held entitled to the grant of pension under the aforesaid Scheme. Let the pensionary benefits be released to the petitioners and all the other similarly situated employees of the aided schools irrespective retired before or after 31.05.2003. Let the benefits be released within a period of two months from today.” Sukhwant Singh (supra) read as under:- “In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to release pension of the petitioners at par with their counter parts in the Government and grant them the benefit of dearness pay at par with their counter parts in the Government. The dearness allowance instalments are also required to be at par with the Government employees. We also direct that no recovery from the petitioners should be effect as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCT 668. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the respondents shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioners, taking expeditiously, in accordance with law, impugned in the present case, which this Court has no eve the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioners are found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are t, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of 2007, decided on 03.05.2007, relevant “In view of the above, we allow these writ petitions. The letter dated 16.07.2003 (Annexure P9) is hereby quashed. All the petitioners who fall within the erstwhile 1992 scheme i.e. they were ed for the pension scheme are held entitled to the grant of pension under the aforesaid Scheme. Let the pensionary benefits be released to the petitioners and all the other similarly situated employees of the aided schools irrespective retired before or after 31.05.2003. Let the “In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to release pension of the petitioners at par with their counter parts in the Government and grant them the n the Government. The dearness allowance instalments are also required to be at par with the Government employees. We also direct that no recovery from the petitioners should be effect as per the directions f Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995(1) SCT 668. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of tates taking in accordance with law, which this Court has no eve the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable are found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are t, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-1871-200 hearing to them legal redress thereupon 16.05.2025 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2008 (O&M) them and shall contain reasons, whereupon legal redress thereupon. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : - 3- and shall contain reasons, whereupon they shall be free to seek (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No shall be free to seek ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.17 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document