VICTORY FOR RETIRED POLICE LEADER AS COURT GRANTS DGP BENEFITS
Category: Civil Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
CASE NAME: B.S. DANEWALIA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
CASE NO.: LPA NO. 1405 of 2017
DATED: December 09, 2024
QUORUM: Hon'ble Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma
FACTS OF THE CASE
B.S. Danewalia, the appellant, was Inspector General of Police (IGP) Punjab since July 20, 1977. He was the head of the state police, drawing a pay scale of ₹2500-2750. Other pay attached included a special pay of ₹250 per month. In February 1980, post dismissal of the Akali Government, he was transferred to a non-cadre post. By way of protest, went on leave and opted for premature retirement with effect from June 5, 1980, with total emoluments of ₹3225. After retirement, the Government of India created the DGP post in replacement of IGP in 1982. Appellant states that had he continued in service until his regular retirement age of 58 years in 1983, he would have been appointed as the first DGP of Punjab.
The pay scale of DGP was Rs. 7600-8000 as per the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission and the pay of the IGP was revised to Rs. 5900-6700. According to the appellant, the DGP pension should have been calculated according to the new scales rather than according to his previous designation as an IGP. He moved a representation for refixation of his pay and pension as per DGP but upon rejection, filed a writ petition in 1999. The Single Judge dismissed this matter on April 25, 2017, and thus has resulted in this appeal.
Hence the present appeal.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
Whether the appellant was entitled to the pensionary benefits at the DGP pay scale after creating the post of DGP post-retirement of the appellant?
Whether the retrospective effect of the notification upgrading the IGP post to DGP in 1982 could be applicable to the determination of the pension of the appellant?
Whether the premature retirement of the appellant disentitled him from claiming benefits from the upgraded post?
LEGAL PROVISION
NO LEGAL PROVISIONS MENTIONED IN THE JUDGEMENT
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPEALLANT
In his contentions, the appellant stated that the 1982 notification upgraded the IGP post he held to DGP levels. Therefore, his position applies to that of DGP. His claim, however, was that had he served until 1983, he would have become the first DGP of Punjab. The appellant also emphasized that the position is supported by the fact that a junior officer was designated as the DGP while the junior officer was Mr. Birbal Nath.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
Then the respondents opposed the argument by saying that the appellant's premature retirement in 1980 cannot place him in a position that earns benefits under the DGP post, which was both created and upgraded in 1982. They also explained why the pension was appropriately fixed, based on the terms and scale of the holder in question for his IGP post at the time when he retired. They also argue that apart from such officers, there are others like S.N. Mathur and Harjit Singh, who have retired in the years of 1982 and 1983 respectively in their seniority vis-a-vis the appellant, and they would have been eligible for consideration under the DGP before him.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court bench comprising Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepi Sharma overturned the Single Judge’s decision and allowed the appeal. The court held that: The updating of the IGP position to DGP was as a result of the appeal under which DGP, being the IGP and head of the Punjab Police, was entitled prospectively to all benefits arising from that elevation in 1982. The court therefore considered the applications of various judgments allowing an extension of the benefits of upgraded posts to those who had previously been in the equivalent posts. The court then held that the argument of the premature retirement of the appellant disentitling him from claiming the benefit of the upgraded pay scale did not hold water as he would have been entitled to the DGP post if he had served his complete regular retirement age. The appointment of a junior officer Mr. Birbal Nath as DGP only proved that the claimant would have been eligible to the upgraded post had he been serving. The court directed the refixation of the pension of the appellant in line with that of the DGP effective January 1, 1986, with interest at 6% per annum.
ANALYSIS
It asserts a boundless import: the benefits of an upgrade are entitled to those who previously held positions equivalent to that upgraded, even after retirement from active service. By denying the respondents reliance on premature retirement and recognizing the anomaly of appointing a junior officer as DGP, the court has drawn the edge of fairness in extending benefits in retirement to the employee.
CONCLUSION
The court ruling seeks to remedy the injustice that his pension was fixed, making it possible to attach the earnings of the DGP post that he would probably have held had he continued his service. This legal ruling upholds the principle that all upgrades in pay and designation should work to the benefit of those who were eligible at the time of their services, even though they have retired.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: ADV ANIK
