This judgment will also dispose of Writ Petition No. 17505 of 1993 as common questions of fact and law are involved in both of them.
2. In this Constitution petition the legality of decision conveyed by Accountant-General, Punjab through letter dated 7-12-1992 has been called in question and a direction has been sought that the petitioners were entitled to 10% increase and 12% ad hoc increase as envisaged in Government letter dated 28-10-1992 and a direction that the amount deducted be reimbursed to them.
3. Since the question of true import and scope of policy decision dated 28-10-1992 has been raised in this Constitutional petition in relation to the relief claimed by the petitioners which has to be interpreted therefore, the relevant clauses of the same are reproduced below:-- (i)Ad hoc increase @ 20% of their existing pension (inclusive of ad hoc increase) to civil pensioners who retired prior to 1st May, 1977.
(ii)Ad hoc increase @ 12% of pension to all civil pensioners.
(iii)Ad hoc increase @ 12% of pension to civil pensioners who retired before 1-5-1977 will be over and above the increase of 20% mentioned at (i) above.
(iv) Ad hoc increase will not be admissible to those who retired on or after 1-6-1991 and are entitled to calculation of pension on pay scales introduced with effect from 1-6-1991.
(v)For the purpose of admissibility of ad hoc increase in pension the term pension means pension before commutation and/or surrender of 1/4th for gratuity plus dearness/ad hoc increase/indexation/ad hoc relief in pension sanctioned from time to time.
(vi)The ad hoc increase will also be admissible on family pension.
(vii) If the gross pension is shared with any other Government in accordance with the relevant rules, the ad hoc increase will be apportioned between the Punjab Government and the other Governments concerned on proportionate basis.
(viii) Commutation/gratuity on any part of ad hoc increase shall not be admissible.
(ix)In the case of re-employed pensioners, the ad hoc increase shall not be admissible during the period of their re-employment.
2.Governor of the Punjab has been further pleased to decide that the Government servants who have retired on or after 1-7-1990 till the introduction of revised pay scales Le. 1-6-1991 be allowed pension/commutation on the basis of pay that would have been admissible to them had the pay revision been effected on the date of their retirement."
4. The case of the petitioners is that ad hoc increase at the rate of 12% of pension under clause (ii) is to be paid to them in addition to the pension allowed to them under paragraph 2.
5. Petitioner No.1 retired on 25-8-1990 whereas petitioner No.2 retired on 26-4-1991. According to clause (iv) of this decision the ad hoc increase under clause (ii) is not admissible to those civil servants who retired on or after 1-6-1991 and their pension is to be calculated on pay scale introduced with effect from 1-6-1991. Had there been no paragraph 2, both the petitioners having retired long before 1-6-1991 their pension was liable to be calculated not on the basis of pay scale introduced with effect from 1-6-1991 but according to the formula previously applicable and in that case they would have been entitled to ad hoc increase at the rate of 12% under clause (ii). By virtue of paragraph 2 those civil servants who had retired after 1-6-1991, have been brought at par with those civil servants who retired after 1-6-1991 as such the petitioner's pension was also to be calculated on the basis of pay scales introduced with effect from 1-6-1991. They both having retired after 1-7-1990 as such they were also not entitled to ad hoc- increase under clause (ii). Those civil servants whose retirement had taken place before 1-7-1990 their case would not fall within the ambit of para. 2, therefore, they would continue to be governed under the old formula of calculation of their pension and continue getting 12% ad hoc increase under clause (ii).
6. Learned A.A.-G. Says that if the gross pension of petitioner No.1 is calculated on the basis of Pay Scales introduced on 1-6-1991 by virtue of para. 2 the same would be Rs.4,513,74 as against Rs.4,132.01 which he was previously drawing inclusive of 10% and 12% claimed in the writ petitions whereas likewise the pension of respondent No.2 would be Rs.4,030,95 by virtue of para. 2 as against Rs.3,651 which he was getting inclusive of 10% and 12% as such they have been benefited and payment of said 12% and 10% ad hoc increase has been done away with in respect of civil servants who had retired after 1-b-1991 because their pension if calculated on the pay scales introduced with effect from 1-6-1991 the same was more beneficial to them.
7. I am in agreement with learned AA.-G. Because the petitioners cannot claim the same benefit twice. By virtue of para. 2 of the decision relied upon by the petitioners they were deemed to be the civil servants falling in the category of clause (iv) and their gross pension is to be calculated on the basis of pay scales introduced with effect from 1-6-1991 which otherwise would not have been so calculated as such having been benefitted could not claim in addition to that 12% ad hoc increase under clause (ii) to discriminate them as against those who were originally governed under clause (iv).
8. The petitioners stated that their gross pension has not been correctly calculated and they are being deprived of certain amount. They may make representation to the authorities concerned who shall decide the same in accordance with law. If the petitioners opt for calculation of their gross pension not only on the basis of pay scales introduced with effect from 1-6-1991 under clause
(iv) of the decision they may be given pension according to the previous formula.
9. For the foregoing reasons the decision impugned in this Writ petition do not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional defect therefore the writ petition has no force which is accordingly