CM-1870-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-748-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (103) CM-1870-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-748-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.07.2026 Daljit Singh Bakshi ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant. (Joined through Video Conferencing) *** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-1870-LPA-2026 Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 169 days in filing the present appeal. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 169 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. LPA-748-2026 (O&M) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 18382 of 2016 and connected cases. The lead case was CWP No. 7658 of 2015 titled as Tejinder Singh Bhathal and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, by which the prayer of the appellant is that the Notification issued by the Government of Punjab dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-7) KANCHAN 2026.07.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-1870-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-748-2026 (O&M) 2 implementing the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission (Punjab Civil Services (revised pay) Rules, 2009 regarding pension and other retiral benefits had been fixed at 01.12.2011, should be implemented retrospectively upon the appellant, who had retired prior to 01.01.2006, has been declined. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that though, the appellant had already retired prior to 01.01.2006 but, the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission which was accepted by the Government in December, 2011 to the effect that the retiree from the date of the Notification, the maximum service required to give full pension has been reduced from 33 years to 25 years hence, the benefit of the same has been declined to the appellant. 3. Learned counsel submits that as per the settled principle of law, there is no distinction between the retirees and, therefore, once a recommendation has been accepted to hold that the retirees who retired after December, 2011, in order to get their full pension fixed, the maximum service required is 25 years, whereas, the appellant has been granted the benefit of maximum service only in case he has done 33 years of service and, therefore, by implementing the Notification dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-7) with retrospective effect, the pension of the appellant should be revised and the benefit should be given. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. KANCHAN 2026.07.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-1870-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-748-2026 (O&M) 3 5. It is a settled principle of law that the recommendation of Pay Commission can only be made applicable, in case the same has been accepted by the Government. In the present case, keeping in view the various facts, the Government decided to accept the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 15.12.2011 qua certain recommendations made such as that the maximum service required to get full pension should be reduced from 33 years to 25 years. 6. Once, a conscious decision has been taken by the Government, the same cannot be made applicable to the retirees, who had already retired prior to the date the said recommendation has been accepted. Concededly, on the date when the appellant retired, the Rules applicable have been applied and his pension has been fixed according to the said Rules. The subsequent amendment to the Rule will not entitle the appellant to claim that the said Rule should be implemented retrospectively so as to revise his pension according to the Rule which had come into being much after the retirement of the appellant. 7. Further, it is a settled principle of law that the Government has the jurisdiction to accept the recommendation of Pay Commission keeping in view the financial liability which the State will incur upon acceptance of the such recommendation. The learned Single Judge has even done the said task and the learned Single Judge has recorded such finding in paragraph 16, which is as under :- “16. Further still, as per Annexure R-2/3 appended with the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, 9729 employees have retired between 01.01.2006 and 30.11.2011 and KANCHAN 2026.07.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-1870-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-748-2026 (O&M) 4 also have a service of 25 to 33 years to their credit. As such, the total liability up to 31.12.2019 is Rs.277,80,04,974/-. However, since 1541 retirees have passed away, the net liability amounts to Rs.233,79,90,001/- for 8188 retirees. Moreover, as per the said affidavit, a liability of Rs.44,00,14,973/- also be incurred by the Corporation as family pension for the 1541 deceased retirees. Further, if the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission are implemented from 01.01.2006, the Corporation would have to pay an excess amount of Rs. 94,00,77,087/-. The affidavit also clearly states that the Corporation incurred a loss of Rs. 6938.99 crores the year 2017-18.” 8. A bare perusal of the same would show that there is a huge financial liability which will come upon the State in case, the prayer of the appellant is accepted. Once, the State decide that such financial liability cannot be sustained, the Court will be in no jurisdiction to pass an order directing the State to suffer such financial liability. 9. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754, such decision taken keeping in view the financial liability has already been upheld. The relevant paragraphs 32 to 37 of the said judgment are as under :- “32. The importance of considering financial implications, while providing benefits for employees, has been noted by this Court in numerous judgments including in the following two cases. In State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Amritlal Gandhi & Ors., this Court went so as far as to note that: "Financial impact of making the Regulations retrospective can be the sole consideration while fixing a KANCHAN 2026.07.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-1870-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-748-2026 (O&M) 5 cut-off date. In our opinion, it cannot be said that this cut-off date was fixed arbitrarily or without any reason. The High Court was clearly in error in allowing the writ petitions and substituting the date of 1.1.1986 for 1.1.1990. 33. More recently, in Veerasamy (supra), this Court observed that, financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while implementing a pension scheme on a revised basis. In that case, the pension scheme applied differently to persons who had retired from service before 1.7.1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class and they formed separate classes. 34. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Boota Singh and Anr., ("Boota Singh") after considering several judgments of this Court in D.S. Nakara (supra) to K.L. Rathee v. Union of India, it was held that D.S. Nakara (supra) should not be interpreted to mean that the emoluments of persons who retired after a notified date holding the same status, must be treated to be the same. 35. In State of Punjab and Anr. v. J. L. Gupta and Ors., where one of us was on the Bench (Sabharwal, J.), the views expressed in Boota Singh (supra) were reiterated, and it was held that for the grant of additional benefit, which had financial implications, the prescription of a specific future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered arbitrary. 36. In Ramrao and Ors. v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and Ors., a Division Bench of this Court said, even for the purpose of effecting promotion, the fixing of a cut-off date was neither arbitrary, unreasonable nor did it offend Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Court held that possible hardship to be endured by a person as a result did not make cut-off dates violative of Article 14. KANCHAN 2026.07.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-1870-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-748-2026 (O&M) 6 37. In the instant case before us, the cut-off date has been fixed as 1.4.1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. Consequently, we reject the contention that the fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14.” 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the same. The only argument raised is that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, there cannot be any difference between the retiree. It may be noticed that the said judgment has been diluted keeping in view the number of decision, wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that an employee who is in service, is a different entity as compared to an employee who has already retired. Any benefit has been extended to a serving employee upon his future retirement, cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a retiree as such retiree forms two different classes. Para 29 of Amar Nath Goyal (supra) is as under :- “29. D.S. Nakara (supra), which is the mainstay of the case of the employees, arose under special circumstances, quite different from the present case. It was a case of revision of pensionary benefits and classifications of pensioners into two groups by drawing a cut-off line and granting the revised pensionary benefits to employees retiring on or after the cut-off date. The criterion made applicable was "being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date". This Court held that for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme, application of such a criterion is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was both arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The reason given by the Court was that the employees who retired prior to a KANCHAN 2026.07.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-1870-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-748-2026 (O&M) 7 specified date, and those who retired thereafter formed one class of pensioners. The attempt to classify them into separate classes/ groups for the purpose of pensionary benefits was not founded on any intelligible differentia, which had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. However, it must be noted that even in cases of pension, subsequent judgments of this Court have considerably watered down the rigid view taken in D.S. Nakara (supra) as we shall see later in T. N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and Ors. ("Veerasamy"). In any event, this is not a case of a continuing benefit like pension; it is a one- time benefit like gratuity.” 11. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the claim of the appellant that the Notification dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure :P-7) should be implemented even qua the employees who had already retired from the Government service prior to 2006, cannot be accepted. 12. No other argument is raised. 13. Keeping in view the above, once the judgment of the learned Single Judge has not been proved to be perversed either on facts or merit, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present case. 14. Dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) July 17, 2026 JUDGE kanchan Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No KANCHAN 2026.07.27 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment