State Of Punjab v. Ajmer Singh

1-          



   





!"

#$ %"&'('#)
**



! !"

#$ +), - )% )#!."/

***

00"11 )!( 2"/(+(

,3"/

')4.

***

"(0#)%")!



5 67 *  

2


 

  
   

    

2

 *

ORAL

          

 !

!   !" 

   #    $

%

&    "#  

" '

!     "    '    ()

*+, -  "         ""    ' 
# ""

    # ." 
 .

 ""  %%

%

*+)  "

#   " $       $   !         # .



*/+ -$. #   )* )/

*+0 ."     (

)(

*+0     !  .

   - !  1     #   !              !   

  "

#  .

 .    ,  

2-     2

         .

  #   

 

(

3       $  " 

     .  !     $     

  #  "

  

  "     $          " .

        $      .

   2 $  "

     $      "       

 $    

  
   

   . !      $  " 4     

!      $ "     

.

  5   #  !" 

   )+

**)  

  

 "         $  $    () )0

**0  !

        

,

2 .   '   1"

         

5 .# $   "   "

        #  '"   State of Punjab and others Versus Boota Singh, 2000 (3) SCC 733 $    $

 State of Punjab Versus J.L.Gupta, 2000 (3) SCC 736 5 .    1   J.L.Gupta's  67 .          "4.

In Boota Singh's case it has also been held that the benefit conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985

3can be claimed by those who retire 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 financial implications 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. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Etc. (1991) 2 SCC 104 this Court distinguished the decision in Nakara's case (supra) and held that the ambit of that decision cannot be enlarged to cover all claims by retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree, irrespective 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 Nakara's case (supra). The latest decision is in the case of K.L. Rathee Vs. Union of India & Ors.

(1997) 6 SCC 7 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, 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."

45.

The controversy involved in the present appeal and connected appeals 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."

5 "   '"        "      9          

#      !   #

/

2 .

$   .  

!   #   $      .

 #  

      #   

"

       

%*

%)%,

2

 Kamal

  : ' !;<

=; : < =;