AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.P. Singh, J.—Earlier six writ applications bearing C.W.J.C. Nos. 4471 of 2010, 3652 of 2010, 13973 of 2008, 7408 of 2007, 7454 of 2007 and 6274 of 2011 were taken up for hearing together. In course of hearing Dr. Ram Ashish Singh, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 13973 of 2008, Dr. Keshava Prasad Singh, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7408 of 2007 and Prof. Satyendra Singh, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7454 of 2007 withdrew their writ applications on 9.9.2013 without prejudice as subsequently they preferred another writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 2010 with more composite reliefs. One Dr. M. Mohiuddin has also joined them as a party. Thus, here remained three writ applications namely C.W.J.C. No. 4471 of 2010, C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 6274 of 2011 which were heard on different dates and are being disposed of by this common order. During the pendency of these writ applications, the sole petitioner of both C.W.J.C. No. 4471 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 6274 of 2011, namely Dr. Janardan Kumar and Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal passed away on 3.8.2010 and 8.9.2012 respectively. They have been substituted by their respective heirs. Late Dr. Janardan Kumar has been substituted by his wife Urmila Devi and his son namely Pushkar Kumar, whereas late Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal has been substituted by his wife Maya Jaiswal and his two sons namely Rajesh Shivam and Ashim Sundaram.
The writ petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:--
(i) quashing of the communication bearing No. 7340 dated 18.7.2007 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar by which it was clarified that revised pension would be applicable in case of only the Chairman and Members of the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short "the Commission") whose salary were revised. In other words, the Chairman or Member who retired prior to revision of salary and pension would not be entitled to revision in pension;
(ii) The petitioners further pray for revision of pension to the tune of Rs. 11,700/- per month equivalent to Rs. 1,40,400/- per annum which is equal to 1/6th of Basic annual pay of the Members of the Commission alongwith its arrears and compensatory interest @ 18% per annum from the due date;
(iii) The petitioners also pray for Dearness Relief on the revised pension at par with the rate admissible to retired Government servant w.e.f. 1.4.2007 after merger of 50% of Dearness Relief.
All the petitioners were appointed as Members of the Commission some time between 27.11.1980 to 5.9.1991. A brief chart showing the date of their joining and superannuation is given below:
One thing runs common in respect of the petitioners that all of them were in University service prior to joining as Members of the Commission. It would be relevant to give some more details about the petitioners which is as follows:--
(i) Dr. Jitendra Kumar, the original petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4471 of 2010 was serving as Principal when he was appointed as Member of the Commission where he remained for full term of six years from 21.11.1980 to 20.11.1986. After completing his tenure, he joined the University service from where he retired on 31.12.1992.
(ii) Similarly, Prof. Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal was appointed as Member of the Commission where he remained for over 4 years from 14.7.1987 to 31.12.1991. Prior to appointment as Member of the Commission, Dr. Jaiswal was serving as University Professor in Bihar University. Dr. Jaiswal eventually retired from the service on 31.12.1991, the date on which he retired as Member of the Commission.
(iii) Prof. Satyendra Singh, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 2010 while serving as University Professor in Magadh University, he was appointed as Member of the Commission where he continued from 5.9.1991 to 4.9.1997. After completing his tenure he joined Magadh University from where he retired on 31.8.1999.
(iv) Dr. Keshava Prasad Singh, petitioner No. 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 2010 too was appointed as Member of the Commission while he was serving as University Professor of English in Patna University. He too served as Member of the Commission from 3.2.1992 to 2.2.1998. After completing his tenure, he too joined as University Professor of English in Patna University from where he retired on 31.7.2003.
(v) Dr. Mohiuddin, petitioner No. 3 in C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 2010 was also a University Professor of Physics in Patna University. He too completed his six years tenure as Member of the Commission from 30.4.1983 to 30.4.1989. He ultimately retired as Vice-Chancellor of Patna University on 25.6.1993.
(vi) Dr. Ram Ashish Prasad Singh, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 2010 too served as Member of the Commission from 9.8.1996 to 9.8.2002 and after completing full term of six years joined his parent post of University Professor on 10.8.2002 from where he retired on 30.6.2008.
It thus appears that late Dr. Janardan Kumar, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4471 of 2010 served as Member of the Commission from 20.11.1980 to 21.11.1986. Dr. Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 6274 of 2011, served as Member of the Commission from 14.7.1987 to 31.12.1991. Dr. Mohiuddin, petitioner No. 3 in C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 2010 served as Member between 1983 to 1989, whereas other petitioners of CWJC No. 3652 of 2010 served between 1991 to 2002.
The quantum of pay and pension of Members & Chairman of Commission were revised from time to time and it is noticeable that monthly pension fixed was nearly equal to 1/6th of the Basic Pay. For instance, in the year 1970, the monthly pay of a Chairman was Rs. 2,500/- and his monthly pension was about Rs. 416/- or Rs. 5,075/- per annum. Similarly, monthly pay of a Member was Rs. 2,250/- per month and pension was Rs. 375/- per month or Rs. 4,500/- per annum. Thus, the monthly or annual pension was 1/6th of the pay.
The Government vide notification dated 17.2.1988 revised the Basic Pay of a Member to Rs. 13,500/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1986 by dint of amendment in Regulation 4 of the Bihar Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations") whereas monthly pension was revised to Rs. 2,250/- by making amendment in Regulation 12. Again the proportion of pension and pay was in the ratio of 1:6. The Government revised the pay of a Member to Rs. 22,400/- and that of Chairman to Rs. 24,500/- w.e.f. 1.4.1997 vide notification dated 14.6.2000 consequent to amendment in Regulation 4 under Article 318 of the Constitution. The pension in respect of Members was revised to Rs. 45,000/- per annum or Rs. 3,750 per month and that of Chairman to Rs. 48,000/- per annum or Rs. 4,000/- per month. Again the quantum of pension and pay was revised in the ratio of 1:6. Then by notification dated 3.9.2008 the Government, consequent to amendment made under Article 318 of the Constitution, substituted the figure and words Rs. 24,500/- in place of Rs. 22,400/- in case of pay of a Member. Similarly, the figure and words Rs. 24,500/- was substituted by Rs. 26,000/- with respect to pay of Chairman under Regulation 4.
Finally, the Government vide its notification dated 29.7.2009 revised the pay of a Member from Rs. 24,500/- to Rs. 70,000/- and that of Chairman from Rs. 26,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- consequent upon amendment in Regulation 4 under Article 318 of the Constitution. However, no corresponding amendment in Regulation 12 was made with respect to pension which remained unchanged as prescribed under notification dated 14.6.2000, which is one of the dispute in this writ application. The petitioners seek enhancement of pension in the ratio of 1:6 vis-a-vis pay. The notifications dated 14.6.2000 and 29.7.2009 which would be relevant in the context are quoted hereinbelow:
The notification dated 29.7.2009 is as follows:--
It is evident from notification dated 29.7.2009 of the Government that though the pay was substantially enhanced, there was no enhancement in respect of pension. The grievance of the petitioners in this respect is two folds:--
(a) Firstly, though pay and pension were revised vide notification dated 14.6.2000 w.e.f. 1.4.1997, the benefit of revision of pension was not granted to Members and Chairman retiring prior to 1.4.1997.
(b) Secondly, the salary of the Members and Chairman were raised to Rs. 70,000/- and 80,000/- respectively from Rs. 24,500/- and Rs. 26,000/- vide notification dated 29.7.2009 but there was no enhancement of pension.
In respect of first grievance the petitioners submit that benefit of revised pension made applicable to Members retiring on or after 1.4.1997 should be retrospectively be made applicable to those who have retired prior to cut-off date. In support of their claim have relied upon decisions reported in D.S. Nakara and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), and F.H. Palejwala Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, . With respect to the second grievance, the petitioners submit that the respondents ought to have revised the pension as and when the pay is revised, otherwise right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would become meaningless.
The petitioners further claim that the respondents have erred in denying Dearness Allowance which has now come to be linked both with salary and pension. The Dearness Allowance ought to have been taken into account while computing pension. The petitioners in support of their submission relied upon decision in the case of Bihar Rajya Shahkarita Prabandhak Sangh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, .
The petitioners submit that there is no reason as to why Government would (sic--not?) be bound to pay Dearness Allowance. They contend that the Finance Department, Government of Bihar vide resolution dated 17.2.1983 took policy decision to grant Dearness Allowance on Basic Pay. The said decision was reiterated by the Government on 31.3.1987 vide letter No. BC-2-9-16/85/680. The petitioners submit that the benefit once accrued cannot be varied to their disadvantage and have placed reliance upon decision in the case of Jagdish Raj Saini, Ex-Member vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1999(5) Services Law Reporter 518 and A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education and Another, .
On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that the service conditions of Member and Chairman of the Commission are governed by Regulations, 1960. Both pay and pension is prescribed by Regulations 4 and 12 which are statutory in nature. The Government has right to fix a cut-off date for grant of enhanced pension which cannot be claimed as a matter of right by those who have retired earlier. The respondents submit that the Government vide its letter dated 18.7.2007 has clarified that Members of the Commission who retired prior to 1.1.1996 is not entitled to benefit of fixation of pay and pension which was amended w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and the monetary benefit of which was to commence w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Paragraph 10 of the Counter Affidavit in case of C.W.J.C. No. 4471 of 2010 states as under:--
That as such the petitioner served as a Member of Bihar Public Service Commission from 21.11.1980 to 20.11.1986 therefore the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of fixation of his pay and pension, which was amended notionally with effect from 1.1.1996 and in real sense with effect from 1.4.1997 in the light of revised pay scale.
The respondents would further submit that the resolution No. 1375 dated 17.2.1983 of the Government deciding to grant Dearness Relief to Members and Chairman of the Commission have been withdrawn vide memo No. 11091 dated 5.11.2007 of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department in view of advise of Finance Department.
The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is as follows:--
(i) Whether the Government can fix a cut-off date denying revised pension to Members and Chairman who have retired prior to the cut-off date?
(ii) Whether a Member or a Chairman of the Commission can claim enhancement of pension vis-a-vis revision of pay as a matter of right?
(iii) Whether the denial of Dearness Allowance on pension would be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
Before I take up the rival submissions for consideration, it would be necessary to notice the relevant provisions of law. A Member or Chairman of Bihar Public Service Commission is appointed for a maximum tenure of six years. The service conditions including pay and pension are prescribed and regulated by B.P.S.C. (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1960.
The term "Member" has been defined in Regulation 2(d) as follows: "Member" means "a Member of the Commission and includes the Chairman". Regulation 2(a) defines "Commission" as Public Service Commission for Bihar. Rule 4 of the Regulation prescribed pay of a Member and Chairman whereas Regulation 12 prescribes their pension. Regulation 11 states that the pension under Regulations is payable to a Member for life only. In other words, no family pension is liable to be paid to the spouse or heirs after death. Of a Member. Regulation 12 which would be relevant in the context is quoted below:--
12 (1) In the case of a Member who on the date of appointment was not in the service of the Union or a State, the pension to which such Member will be entitled shall-
(i) in the case of a Chairman, if he has completed six years'' service for pension and has drawn pay at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- a month, be Rs. 5,075/- per annum; and
(ii) in the case a Member, other than the Chairman, if he has completed six years, service for pension and has drawn pay at the rate of Rs. 2,250/- a month, be Rs. 4,500/- per annum.
(2) If a Member has completed three years'', four years'', or five years'' service for pension, be three-sixths, four-sixths or five-sixths, respectively, of the full pension which would be payable to him, as the case may be, in accordance with clause (1).
(3) Where the pay determined under clause (3) of Regulation 9 in respect of a period of six years of service for pension of a Member is less than the pay specified in relation to such period in sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (1), the amount of pension admissible per annum shall be the amount arrived at by multiplying the average monthly pay determined under clause (3) of Regulation 9 with the amount of pension to which the Member would be entitled if his full, and not average, monthly, pay had been taken into account, and the product then being divided by the full pay mentioned in sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (1), as the case may be.
(4) In case specified in clause (2) if the average monthly pay determined under clause (3) of Regulation 9 is less than the full pay to be taken into account for purposes of the clause, the pension admissible shall be relative proportion in each case, specified in the said clause, of the amount of pension arrived at in accordance with clause (3).
Article 318 of the Constitution confers power on the Hon''ble Governor of a State to make regulations as to the conditions of service of Members and staff of the Commission. However, proviso to Article states that condition of service of a Member of Public Service Commission shall not be varied to its disadvantage after his appointment.
We are concerned for the present with one such exercise of power by Hon''ble Governor under Article 318 of the Constitution whereby he revised the pay and pension by making amendment in Regulations 4 and 12, which was due notified by the Government vide notification dated 14.6.2000 contained in Annexure-3 of C.W.J.C. No. 4471 of 2010. The benefits were made effective with effect from 1.4.1997.
The stand of the State is that the revised pension would be applicable to Members retiring on or after 1.4.1997. The stand of the State prejudicially affects the original petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4471 of 2010 and C.W.J.C. No. 6274 of 2011 and petitioner No. 3 Dr. Mohiuddin of C.W.J.C. No. 3652 of 2010, who all completed their stint as Members of the Commission prior to 1.4.1997.
Coming to the issue whether the Government can deny the benefit of revised pension which made applicable from 1.4.1997 to Members retiring prior to said date. The petitioners have placed heavy reliance upon Constitution Bench decision in the case of D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India (supra) & F.H. Palejwala vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra). The Constitution Bench in the case of D.S. Nakara held that the classification in revision pension formula between pensioners on the basis of date of retirement specified in Government Memorandum No. F-19(3)-EB-79 dated 25.7.1979 is arbitrary and liable to be struck down. The Hon''ble Apex Court further observed that fixation of cut off date for entitlement to liberalized pension scheme irrespective of their date of retirement violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon''ble Apex Court held "One rank, one pension" for all retirees of Armed Forces irrespective of their date of retirement.
The petitioners has next relied upon a decision in the case of F.H. Palejwala vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra) which too was dealing with applicability of revised pension at amended rate to the employees who has retired prior to the date from which the amended pension was made applicable. The learned single Judge held that the pension at amended rate though cannot be claimed prior to date it came into force, but definitely could be claimed by Members of Public Service Commission who retired prior to amendment w.e.f. the date, the amendment came into force. The learned Judge for coming to the aforesaid conclusion relied upon decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in case of D.S. Nakara.
In my view the decision rendered in the case of D.S. Nakara would not be of much help to the petitioners in facts and circumstances of the case. The ratio laid down in case of D.S. Nakara was considered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in two subsequent Constitution Bench judgments in case of Indian Ex-Services League and others Vs. Union of India, and Krishena Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and others, to which I would be referring in brief.
The Constitution Bench in the case of Indian Ex-Service League vs. Union of India (supra) was considering the grievance of Ex-Service Men claiming on the basis of decision in D.S. Nakara case that all retirees, who held the same rank, irrespective of their date of retirement, must get the same quantum of pension. While negativing the claims, the Hon''ble Apex Court observed that conclusion of the Hon''ble Court in D.S. Nakara case was in context of the benefits of liberalisation given in accordance with liberalised pension scheme, which had to be given equally to all retirees, irrespective of their date of retirement. Thus, benefits could not be confined to only the persons who retired on or after the specified date.
Furthermore, the Hon''ble Apex Court, in another Constitution Bench decision in the case of Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India (supra), observed that the decision rendered in case of D.S. Nakara is one of the limited application.
In case of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others Vs. Union of India and others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court was considering a challenge to the validity of introduction of pension scheme in place of C.P.F. scheme denying benefit to employees retiring prior to 1.1.1986. The Hon''ble Apex Court held that cut-off date was neither arbitrary nor artificial or whimsical.
The Hon''ble Apex Court again in the case of Union of India Vs. P.N. Menon and others, held that a cut-off date for treating part of the Dearness Allowance as pay for computing pension and gratuity for Government servant retiring on or after specified date is permissible if it is not arbitrary or "picking out a date from the hat" as observed in the case of D.R. Nim vs. Union of India, reported in 1967 AIR SC 1301.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. N. Subbarayudu and Others, observed in paragraph 8 that "even if no reason has been given by the Government in the counter affidavit of the Government or Executive Authority as to why a particular cut-off date has been chosen, the court must still not declare the date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the cutoff date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result".
It is thus authoritatively been held that if a cut-off date has reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved, the same cannot be faulted on the ground that it denied benefit of revision of pay and pension to a Member or Chairman of the Commission retiring prior to such date. The Government took a decision to revise pension under Regulation 11 to Members vide notification dated 14.6.2000 retiring prior to 1.4.1997. Even the Government employees retiring prior to 1.4.1997 were denied benefit of revised pay scale made effective from 1.4.1997. Thus, I find that the cut-off date fixed for granting benefit of revised pension pursuant to Government notification dated 14.6.2000 is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Thus, Members retiring prior to cut-off date of 1.4.1997 would not be entitled to revise pension made effective from that date.
The petitioners next contended that the Government employees have been given the benefit of revised pension from time to time whereas the same has been denied to the Members of the Commission. It appears that the Government vide different resolutions from time to time has decided to enhance the pension of the retired Government employees as per the formula indicated in the resolution. One such resolution is resolution No. 137 of 2008 of Government of Bihar providing revised pensionary benefits to Government employees retiring prior to 1.1.2006. However, in the instant case, I find that neither the Hon''ble Governor nor the Government in their discretions have chosen to extend the benefit of revised pension by making any amendment in Regulation 12 in the year 2000 with respect to Members retiring prior to 1.4.1997. Similarly, the Hon''ble Governor in 2009 while amending the Regulation 4 under Article 318 of the Constitution in the year 2009 raised the pay of Member and Chairman to Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- but did not make any amendment with respect to enhancement of pension.
In matters of fiscal policy, the Courts have limited scope of administrative review of such decision. However, only if such policy is per se arbitrary and capricious being violative of Article 14 and right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, nothing would fetter the power of the Courts to interfere in such policy, which has to be examined on case to case basis.
In the instant case, the Governor has not made any amendment under Article 318 of the Constitution in respect of pension under Regulation 12 while making such amendment with respect to pay. The respondents has submitted that the pay has been raised by three fold which would duly take care of the service conditions as the Members and Chairman are getting pension. In other words, the petitioners are seeking mandamus to the Hon''ble Governor for bringing amendment in the Regulation 12 under Article 318 of the Constitution.
For the present the Court would refrain from issuing mandamus as I am of the view that the petitioners should approach the respondents for consideration of enhancement of pension and making of necessary amendment in Regulation 12. It is not a case where a Member who has even put in two to three years of service are not getting any pension. This Court nonetheless would like to point out that the petitioners were all in the service of University prior to their appointment as Members of the Commission. Their joining in the Commission has not in any way affected their pensionary benefits as employees of the University. It is not in dispute that they got their due promotion and other retiral benefits, notwithstanding the interregnum period for which they had joined the Commission.
Now we come to the last issue whether the respondents are justified in not granting Dearness Allowance while computing pension. The petitioners submit that the learned single Judge in the case of Bihar Rajya Sahkarita Prabandhak Sangh (supra) observed that Dearness Allowance was initially incorporated to compensate and neutralize the rise in prices without increasing the wages. Furthermore, though initially introduced as a temporary measure, it has come to stay as a part of total wage structure in India in view of the fact that price rise is a permanent feature. The learned Judge further observed that the Dearness Allowance is inextricably linked with wages and denial of the same would amount to denial of protection granted under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The learned Judge further observed that the "life" under Article 21, would include all the finer graces of human existence and the pay given to an employee totally bereft of dearness allowance does not permit the recipient to enjoy even the bare necessities of life.
The petitioners also contend that benefit once accrued cannot be varied or denied. In support of their submissions, the petitioners have referred to proviso to Article 318 of the Constitution and decision rendered in the case of A.A. Calton (supra). In my view though I may agree with the proposition canvassed at the bar, the decision relied upon by the petitioners would not be applicable to them.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of A.A. Calton Corrected vide Hon''ble Courts modification order dt. 25.10.2013, reported in A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education and Another, observed that no retrospective effect should be given to statutory provisions to take away existing right. The petitioners have next contended that the condition of service of Members of Public Service Commission shall not be varied to one''s disadvantage after one''s appointment in view of proviso to Article 318. In the instant case the petitioners have not been able to point out any statutory provision which has taken away any existing right of the petitioners. Article 318 of the Constitution with its proviso is quoted hereinbelow:--
Power to make regulations as to conditions of service of members and staff of the Commission.---In the case of the Union Commission or a Joint Commission, the President and, in the case of a State Commission, the Governor of the State may by regulations--
(a) determine the number of members of the Commission and their conditions of service; and
(b) make provision with respect to the number of members of the staff of the Commission and their conditions of service:
Provided that the conditions of service of a member of a Public Service Commission shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.
It is not in dispute that the service conditions of a Member of the Commission is governed and regulated by Regulation, 1960. The pay, pension and fiscal benefits are prescribed by regulations themselves. Again the petitioners have not been able to point out that any beneficial conditions which was prescribed under Regulation has either been withdrawn or varied or withdrawn to the disadvantage of a Member.
Nonetheless, as I have observed above, the plea of the petitioners for grant of Dearness Allowance would succeed for the reasons that the Government cannot preclude itself from implementing its own promise. Incorporated vide Hon''ble Court''s modification order dt. 25.10.2013. The Government is bound by its own promise and instruction. Reference in this respect can be made to a decision in the case of Swaran Singh Chand Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others, ." I find that the Government vide its resolution No. 1375 dated 17.2.1983 of the Finance Department accepted to grant Dearness relief on basic pension to Members and Chairman of the Commission. The aforesaid resolution was reiterated in the letter No. 680 dated 31.3.1987 of the Finance Department. However, it appears that the letter dated 31.3.1987 reiterating the Government decision to grant Dearness Relief on basic pension to Members and Chairman of the Commission has been withdrawn by letter dated 5.11.2007 contained in memo No. 11091 of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar.
Thus, I find that the Government way back in the year 1983 has held out a promise and has in fact resolved to grant Dearness Relief to the Members of the Public Service Commission. All the original petitioners joined the Public Service Commission as Members after 17.2.1983. As such, they would have a right to Dearness Allowance and the Government would have a corresponding liability to honour the same. The Government cannot act like any individual or private body in a welfare State and would not implement its own policy and promise held to the public and the employees.
All the petitioners were appointed after 17.2.1983 when the Government took a decision to grant Dearness Relief to the retired Members and Chairman of the Commission. The said resolution was withdrawn only in the year 2007. As such, the Government would be bound by its promise to the Members who joined after 17.2.1983.
For the present, I will not go into the issue whether the withdrawal of Dearness Allowance in the year 2007 is lawful or not, as the petitioners are not affected by the said resolution being appointed after 17.2.1983 and having superannuated prior to 2007.
In the circumstances, I direct the respondent State to grant Dearness Relief to the petitioners as per its promise contained in resolution dated 17.2.1983 reiterated on 31.3.1989. Incorporated vide Hon''ble Court''s modification order dt. 25.10.2013 "within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order". The writ applications are allowed to the extent indicated above.