Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought quashing of Para 3 of the Notification and Order by Respondent 1-State and letter issued by Respondent 2-Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. (‘PSPCL’) through which all benefits of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were withheld from the petitioners. A Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., held that PSPCL being a statutory corporation was entitled to prescribe a cut-off date for implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, in view of its financial health. The Court opined that since an effective alternate remedy in the form of appeal was available with the petitioners, which they failed to exercise, the present petition was not maintainable.
Background
In the present case, the petitioners were employees of PSPCL who had retired after rendering service for over 25 years. The recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted by the State of Punjab and implemented by notifying the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (‘Rules of 2009’). It stated that the prerequisite of 33 years of service to qualify for pension was dispensed with and once an employee attained a minimum qualifying service of 25 years, he/she would be entitled to a pension equal to 50% of the basic pay or emoluments received during the last 10 months, whichever would be beneficial to him/her. The benefits concerned were to be implemented with effect from 1-12-2011 as mentioned in Para 3 of the Notification dated 15-12-2011. Since the petitioners had retired before the date concerned, they were denied the benefits.
Certain similarly situated retired employees had moved this Court and the Coordinate Bench quashed Para 3 of the Notification concerned and observed that it could not be proved that the cut-off date of 1-12-2011 was the result of a conscious decision based on financial constraints.
Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent-State preferred an appeal wherein a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to take a fresh decision with respect to the cut-off date. Thereafter, in compliance of the same, the State decided to retain 1-12-2011 as the cut off days for granting benefits of the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission as changing the same to 1-1-2006 would inflict the State with a considerable financial burden. Following this, PSPCL issued a letter dated 5-2-2015 stating that the cut-off date would remain to be 1-12-2011.
Aggrieved by it, the retired employees moved to this Court, challenging the order which resulted in quashing of the same, but the same was challenged by the State, which was currently pending consideration.
The petitioners contended that the State arbitrarily fixed the cut-off date as 1-12-2011, which was discriminatory against persons who retired from service before the date concerned. Further, they also contended that the respondents arrived at this decision in a mechanical manner, without attempting to present an intelligible differentia, which was violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, as enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, PSPCL contended that it was well within its right to prescribe a cutoff date, keeping in view the financial implications involved because it had incurred a cumulative loss of Rs 6938.99 Crores in 2017-2018.
Analysis and Decision
Whether PSPCL could deviate from the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission and set its own cut-off date based on its financial health?
The Court opined that Punjab State Electricity Board was a statutory body formed under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 which was separated into two companies by the Government of Punjab, one of which was PSPCL which made it a statutory body too.
After considering the material placed on record to show the financial health of the Corporation, the Court held that it was not sufficient to extend the enhanced pensionary benefits to those who retired prior to 1-12-2011.
Further, considering Chairman & MD, Kerala SRTC v. K.O. Varghese, (2007) 8 SCC 231, the Court held that financial health was a relevant factor for a corporation to decide the commencement date of enhanced pensionary benefits. Thus, the Court opined that the respondents were justified in deciding to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 1-12-2011 and the exercise was not tainted by arbitrariness.
Whether the present petition, being the second petition, was maintainable, or should the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court?
The Court dismissed the petition and held that the Division Bench had conclusively decided the issue on merits, the same had attained finality and since an effective alternate remedy in the form of appeal was available with the petitioners, which they failed to exercise, the present petition was not maintainable.
[Tejinder Singh Bhathal v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 7658 of 2015, decided on 19-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate, Ashish Goklaney, Advocate, Anmol Thakur, Advocate, Sandeep Arora, Advocate, Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, Ashish Gupta, Advocate, Virender K. Shukla, Advocate, Kusum Raj, Advocate, A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate, Raj Kumar, Advocate, Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, Pankaj Bains, Advocate and Vijay Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate, Ratik Chatrath Kapur, Advocate, H.S. Ghuman, Advocate, Sumit Kalyan, Advocate, Sehajbir Singh, Advocate and Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
