Dismissed¶20

Dhanurdhar Halder v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC29 Jul 2024WP.CT/203/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pension refixation under 6th Pay Commission excluding dual charge allowance; dual charge allowance drawn for 49 days (12th June, 1996 to 30th July, 1996) prior to retirement on 31st March, 1997; circular RBE No.11 of 2013 not challenged; Para - 650 of IREM (Vol. - I) and memo dated 16th May, 2013 urged but no finding returned by Tribunal; OA 50 of 2019; Tribunal order dated 24th March, 2021 upheld; order dated 8th October, 2018 of respondent no.3 affirmed; WPCT 203 of 2023 dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition WPCT 203 of 2023 was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶20

Dhanurdhar Halder Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition WPCT 203 of 2023 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the dual charge allowance, though taken into consideration for fixing the petitioner's pension on retirement (31st March, 1997) and at revision under the 5th Pay Commission, could lawfully be excluded with effect from 1st January, 2006 on refixation of pension under the 6th Pay Commission. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The petitioner enjoyed dual charge allowance only for a period of 49 days prior to his retirement and was not holding any dual charge on the date of his retirement.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's pension was refixed pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission recommendations in the light of circular RBE No.11 of 2013, and that circular was not under challenge.

¶17

Key takeaways

The Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Tribunal refusing to interfere with the order dated 8th October, 2018 passed by respondent no.3.ratio¶18
The learned Tribunal dealt with all the factual issues, arrived at specific findings, and there is no error, least of all any patent error of law, in the order impugned.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPCT 203 of 2023, decided 29.07.2024) challenging the Tribunal's order dated 24th March, 2021 in OA 50 of 2019, which had declined to interfere with an order dated 8th October, 2018 of respondent no.3 excluding dual charge allowance from refixation of the petitioner's pension with effect from 1st January, 2006 under the 6th Pay Commission. Held: the petitioner enjoyed dual charge allowance for only 49 days before retirement on 31st March, 1997 and held no dual charge on the date of retirement; his pension had been fixed at Rs.6,000/- under the 5th Pay Commission, raised to Rs.6097/- counting the dual charge allowance, and further to Rs.6153/- on annual increment from 1st January, 1996; refixation followed circular RBE No.11 of 2013, which was never challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's refusal to interfere disclosed no infirmity or patent error of law, notwithstanding the reliance placed on the memo dated 16th May, 2013 and Para - 650 of IREM (Vol. - I). Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

29.07.2024 rpan/ 78

¶2

WPCT 203 of 2023

¶3

Shri Dhanurdhar Halder – Versus – Union of India & Others

¶4

Mr. Siddhartha Sanakr Mandal, Ms. Arunima Das Sharma … for the Petitioner.

¶5

Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ms. Runu Mukherjee ... for the UoI/Respondents.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 24^th March, 2021 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA), being OA 50 of 2019.

¶7

The said OA was preferred by the petitioner challenging inter alia an order dated 8^th October, 2018 passed by the respondent no.3.

¶8

Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strenuously argues that the dual charge allowance of the petitioner for the period from 12^th June, 1996 to 30^th July, 1996 though taken into consideration for fixing his pension upon retirement on 31^st March, 1997 and also at the time of revision of pension in terms of the 5^th Pay Commission, the element of dual charge allowance was excluded with effect from 1^st January, 2006 on refixation of pension in terms of the 6^th Pay Commission. The said dual

¶9

¶10

charge allowance had been withdrawn without any reason whatsoever. Pension is a valuable right and property in the hands of the petitioner and the same had been illegally refixed to his disadvantage without due process of law. In the said conspectus, the learned Tribunal erred in law in not interfering with the order dated 8^th October, 2018 passed by the said respondent no.3.

¶11

Drawing our attention to the memo dated 16^th May, 2013 as well as the provisions of Para – 650 of IREM (Vol. – I), he contends that the dual charge allowance was a part and parcel of the pay and accordingly the same was taken into consideration at the time of revision in terms of the 5^th Pay Commission and in the absence of alteration of such nature and character of the element of dual charge allowance, the same could not have been denied in terms of 6^th Pay Commission. Such arguments, as advanced, were glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same.

¶12

Ms. Alam, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner enjoyed dual charge allowance for the period from 12^th June, 1996 to 30^th July, 1996 prior to his retirement and cessation of his relationship with the employer. The fixation of pay as per the 6^th Pay Commission was rightly done by the respondents in consonance with the provisions of the circular, being RBE No.11 of 2013. The said

¶13

¶14

circular was, however, not challenged by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal.

¶15

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶16

Records reveal that the petitioner’s pension was fixed earlier at Rs.6,000/- as per 5^th Pay Commission and thereafter, fixed at Rs.6097/- after taking into account the dual charge allowance, which was further raised to Rs.6153/- on the grant of annual increment with effect from 1^st January, 1996.

¶17

Indisputably, the petitioner enjoyed dual charge allowance for a period of 49 days prior to his retirement. He was not holding any dual charge on the date of his retirement. His pension was refixed upon 6^th Pay Commission recommendations in the light of the circular, being RBE No.11 of 2013. The said circular was not under challenge.

¶18

In the said conspectus, the learned Tribunal refused to interfere with the order dated 8^th October, 2018 passed by the respondent no.3 and we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned.

¶19

The learned Tribunal, upon dealing with all the factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error, least to say any patent error of law in the order impugned.

¶20

In view thereof, the writ petition, being WPCT 203 of 2023 is dismissed.

¶21

¶22

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶23

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Dhanurdhar Halder v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanurdhar Halder v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Shekhar and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mukunda Behari Biswas Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs Sri Upendra Singh and Ors.

Sanat Kumar Hait and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kartick Chatterjee Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Parameswar Prasad