We are uploading a report received from Shri BG Raithatha. The report contains certain remarks of SC not to encourage litigation for the sake of litigation.
It is our feeling that these general remarks are of no use to the pensioners since the lower courts will take the plea that the cases before them have altogether different facts and that the same merit fresh orders of the Court. It is thus a matter of discretion of the lower court to take a particular decision. We are however publishing the report just for information of the readers.
From KML Asthana
Duty of Government
is to avoid unwarranted litigations and
not to encourage litigation for the sake of litigation; SC
July 1, 2015
HON'BLE
The Supreme Court of India today observed that it is the duty of the
State Government to avoid unwarranted litigations and not to encourage
any litigation for the sake of litigation. The Apex Court made these
observations in the judgment delivered by the Division Bench consisting
of Justices Dipak Misra and Abhay Manohar Sapre.
The
Court delivered its judgment in a Civil Appeal No. 1123 OF 2015 (State
of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma) in which two State
Governments had denied pension benefits to Lecturers, Librarians and
PTIs, who retired prior to 1.1.2006. After, 2006, State of Haryana and
Rajasthan had released several notifications regarding pension to
persons who retried before 2006, but the same was not extended to
Lecturers, Librarians and PTIs as there was a confusion regarding their
pay grade being from the Lecturer (Ordinary Scale), Lecturer(Senior
Scale) or Lecturer (Selection Scale).
The
matter accordingly reached the High Court where the single judge ruled
in favour of retired persons. However, Division Bench set aside the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the
writ court to decide the matter afresh after considering the guidelines
and various other aspects of the case.
After
the matter was remitted back to the single judge, the single judge
again ruled in favour of the petitioners, the retired persons. However,
the State preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by the single
judge and the matter reached the Division Bench. The Division Bench too
awarded the judgment in favour of the retired persons, but with some
modifications.
The
State then preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, wherein the
Apex Court also ruled in favour of the respondents. It also said, "It is
a well known principle that pension is not a bounty. The benefit is
conferred uponan employee for his unblemished career." The Court relied
on observations made in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India and emphasized
that the parts reproduced from D.S. Nakara form fundamental concept in
service jurisprudence.
The
Court accordingly ruled in favour of retired persons and gave the
states three months to pay back the amount, failing which interest at 9
per cent per annum would be levied on the amount, until the date of
realization.