Manju Mehta v. State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-10274-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10274-2023 Date of decision: 20.02.2025 Manju Mehta

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present:

Mr. Ankit Midha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to revise the pension fixation as on 01.01.2006 to Rs.14060/- as per the entitlement in accordance with the Govt. instructions dated 22.02.2010 and 30.12.2010 as given to other similarly placed pre 01.01.2006 retirees. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to para 10 of the petition, which reads thus:- "That since the petitioner worked as Lecturer (Selection Grade) for seven years prior to her retirement on 11.10.1993, she was entitled to a minimum pension of Rs.23,200/- as per the above circular dated 30.12.2010 had she completed the qualifying service of 33 years. However, since the petitioner sought premature retirement, which was granted to her after putting in 20 years and 06 days service, the minimum pension payable has to be reduced pro-rata as per Note given under Annexure-B of Circular dated 30.12.2010, Annexure P/3 and would come out to Rs. 14,060/-."

3.

Reliance is also placed on Annexure P-8, showing the petitioner pre-revised scale as Rs.12000-18300/- by the Principal Govt. College, SAS Nagar, while the sole ground in para 3 of the written statement is that the scale as Rs.37400-67000+9000 AGP, could be given only to those who completed 3 years in the scale of Rs.12000-18300, which the petitioner did not fulfill. HAMANT 2025.02.21 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-10274-2023 4.

The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the respondents would not be averse to have a relook at the matter and decided afresh, within a period of 4 months, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 5.

The aforesaid satisfies the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6.

The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to her interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to her and shall contain reasons, whereupon she shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 20.02.2025 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No HAMANT 2025.02.21 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document