BASUDEB DAS, KOLKATA
"NOTES
ON RAJASTHAN HC JUDGEMENT":
Off and on, a section of LIC
pensioners raise a question whether Justice
MN Bhandari’s judgement contains updation of pension from time to time
wage revision or it deals with revision of DA only. Let us examine the issue from legal angle.
The Indian Constitution empowers
the SC to issue writs for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights
conferred by Part III of the Indian Constitutionn under Art 32. The power to
issue writs is primarily a provision made to make available the right to
Constitutional remedies to every citizen. The right to Constitutional remidies,
as we know, is a guarantor of all other fundamental rights available to the
people of india. In addition to the above, the Constitution also provides for Parliament
to confer on SC power to issue writs for purposes other than those mentioned
above.
Similarly HC in India are also empowered under Art
226 of the
Constitution to issue writs
for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and for any
other purpose.
What art 32 & art
226 states in the Indian Constitution:
“32. Remedies for enforcement of
rights conferred by this Part.—(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings
for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or
writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court
by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to
exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended
except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution
226. Power of
High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1) Notwithstanding anything
in article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred
by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders
or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any
High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which
the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power,
notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence
of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way
of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings
relating to, a petition under clause (1), without—
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all
documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for
the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the
party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party,
the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks
from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of
such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court
is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so
disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the
case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this
article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court
by clause (2) of article 32”.
The constitutional provision empowers SC to issue “directions,
orders or writs” and not necessarily orders are to be issued in every case. In
the light of the above provision, let us see what happened in Jaipur Bench of
Rajasthan HC. A 2nd writ
petition under Art 226, after the
first on DA Anomaly, was filed as per details given below:
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana,
aged about 67 years, son of late Shri R.S.L. Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti
Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
K.L. Malhotra, aged about 70
years, son of Shri D.M. Malhotra, 209, Girnar, Mahadev Nagar, resident of
Gandhi Path, Queens’ Road, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
Madan Lal Khandelwal, aged
about 69 years, son of Shri Banshidharji Khandelwal, resident of 2971, Third
Crossing, Uniara Raoji ka Rasta, Chandpole, Jaipur-302001 (Senior Citizen)
A.P. Tiwari, aged about 78
years, son of Shri G.L. Tiwari, resident of D-1, New Durga Marg, Bani Park,
Jaipur-302006 (Senior Citizen)
Ramesh Chandra Khandelwal,
aged about 70 yeas, son of Shri Kundan Lalji Khandelwal, resident of 68/118,
Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
K.M. Tahiliani, aged about 72
years, son of late Shri Moti Ram Tahiliani, resident of 5-Ka-5, Jawahar Nagar,
Jaipur (Senior citizen)
Jas Raj Mahnot, aged about 81
years, son of late Shri Girdhari Lal Mahnot, resident of 4-Ya-8, Jawahar Nagar,
Jaipur (Senior citizen)
Kishinchand B. Chainani, aged
about 73 years, son of Shri Bhojraj Chainani, resident of Vatika, 3-J-35,
Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur-302004 (Senior Citizen)
Raj Mal Hada, aged about 72 years, son of late
Shri Bhanwarlalji Hada, resident of 192, Mahaveer Nagar-I, Tonk Road,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
O.P. Sapra, aged about 71
years, son of Shri Ghanshyam Das Sapra, resident of A-132, Ram Street, Raja
Park, Jaipur-302004 (Senior Citizen)
R.S. Dangayach, aged about 69 years, son of
Shri G.L. Dangayach, resident of 1, Khandela House, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
(Senior Citizen)
Chandra Prakash Chug, aged
about 64 years, 65 years, son of Shri Raj Kishan Chug, resident of 107, Janakpuri-Ist,
Imli Phatak, Jaipur
Murli Dhar Gupta, aged about
72 years, resident of Vishali, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
Prem Chand Sharma, aged about
67 years, son of late Shri Pooran Chand Sharma, resident of 63, Vishnu Enclave,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
Narain S. Menghani, aged about
69 years, son of Shri Somjimal Menghani, resident of 121/62, Agarwal Farm,
Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020 (Senior Citizen)
Anand Singh, aged about 69
years, son of Shri Kehar Singhji, resident of M-15, Madhuban Colony, Tonk Road,
Jaipur-302015 (Senior Citizen)
Jagdish Chandra Gupta, aged
about 70 years, son of late Shri Panna Lal Gupta, resident of C-13-E,
Indrapuri, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Senior Citizen).
M.R. Badaya, aged about 67
yeas, son of Shri S.P. Badaya, resident of B-58, Saket Colony, Adarsh Nagar,
Jaipur-302004
Rattan K. Chhablani, aged
about 70 years, son of Shri Keshwa Das, resident of 5A, Mayur Colony, Mayo
College Road, Ajmer (Senior Citizen)
I.J. Karnawat, aged about 69
years, son of late Shri Raan Lalji, resident of 2-Sagar Darshan, Rani Road,
Udaipur-313 001 (Senior Citizen)
Ganesh Lal Mehta, aged about
69 years, son of late Shri Arjun Lalji, resident of 117, Chetak Marg, Chetak
Circle, Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
Manohar Lal Joshi, aged about
71 years, son of late Shri Shankar Lalji, resident of Shiv Kripa, RHB, Opp.
Water Tank, STD Tower, Udaipur Road, Banswara (Senior Citizen)
Shankar Lal Sankhla, aged
about 70 years, son of late Shri H.L. Sankhla, resident of 70-A, Chitrakoot
Vihar, HMS No. 14, Behind Shiv Mandir,
Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
Roop Lal Nagori, aged about 68
years, son of Shri Dhan Rajji, resident of 14, Glass Factory, Udaipur (Senior
Citizen)
Nand Gopal Kapoor, aged about
70 years, son of late Shri Gian Chandji Kapoor, resident of Plot No. 9, Nirmal
Kutir, Opp. Boys Hostel, Vibhan Society, Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
Miyajiwala, aged about 76
years, son of Shri Jiwajibhai, c/o Noble Bearing Tool Company, 19, Ashwani
Bazar, Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
B.L Bhadawat, aged about 67
years, son of Shri M.L. Bhadawat, resident of HS-1, Hiran Magri Sector-5,
Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
K.S. Nigam, aged about 67
years, son of Shri K.B.L. Nigam, resident of B-35, Prabhu Marg, Tilak Nagar,
Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
Petitioners
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of
India, through the Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur
Union of India, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Insurance, Government of India, New Delhi
Respondents
In the matter of Articles 14,
16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
AND
In the matter of Life
Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995;
And
In the matter of Life
Insurance Corporation of India Class-I Officers (Revision of Terms and
Conditions of Service Rules, 1985;
And
In the matter of Life
Insurance Corporation of India Class II (Development Officers) (Revision of
Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985;
And
In the matter of Life
Insurance Corporation of India Class III & IV (Revision of Terms and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985;
And
In the matter of Payment of
Pension to the Petitioners as per the substituted Pay scales from time to time;
And
In the matter of Revision of
ex-gratia pension paid to pre-1986 retirees.
……. S.B. Civil Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Judgement:
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR
BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
1. S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.6676/1998
Krishna Murari
Lal Asthana
Vs.
Union of
India & Ors.
2. S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.654/2007
Krishna Murari
Lal Asthana & Ors.
Vs.
L.I.C. of
India & Ors.
Date of
Order : 12th January, 2010
HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr.Abhinav
Sharma, Ms.Anita Aggarwal,G.C. - for petitioners
Mr. Anurag
Aggarwal, Mr.Manoj Singh Ragav
Mr.S.S.
Raghav - for respondents
BY THE
COURT:
REPORTABLE
These two writ petitions involve common issues, thus
are being heard and decided by this order…….
……… In light of the discussion made above, both
the writ petitions are allowed…….. The benefit arising out of the
directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so
that every retired employee may get the same benefit.
(M.N.
BHANDARI) J.
The writ originally prayed for under Art
226 was not rejected or dismissed or declared not maintainable, but are
allowed which means content of the writ became directives of the Hon’ble Court
and became legally binding and
enforceable in law. It is not like civil appeals of Court where specific orders
with decisions need to be necessarily issued. As per constitutional provision,
writs as prayed for, if allowed, it construes to be Constitutional Order and
maintainable in law and binding on all parties involved.
(
Interpretation by Basudeb Das, Kolkata )
