Partly allowed

The Union of India and 4 Ors. v. Sri Madan Chandra Nath

Gauhati HC27 Oct 2021Review.Pet./176/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court, in a review petition, modified the date of grant of disability pension for the respondent. While acknowledging the entitlement under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules based on long medical service, the Court limited the relief to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition due to significant delay in approaching the authorities, relying on the Supreme Court decisio

What did the court decide?

The direction was modified to grant disability pensionary benefit w.e.f. 26.03.2016 instead of from the date of discharge in 1992.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Sri Madan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010241412019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Review Petition No. 176 of 2019

¶5

IN WP(C) No. 2124 of 2019 (Disposed of)

¶6

The Union of India, Represented by the Ministry of Defense, Government of India, South Block, Nirman Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110011.

¶7

The Inspector General of Border Security Force, Block No.10, CGO Complex, Lodhi road, Pragti Vihar, New Delhi-110003.

¶8

The Commandant, 123 Battalion, Border Security Force, Bagafa, Tripura South-799144.

¶9

The Commandant, 123 Bn BSF, Sagar Road, Bikaner, Rajasthan PIN-334001.

¶10

The Senior Accounts Officer, Pay and Account Division (Pension-III Section), Director General Border Security force, Pushpa Bhawan, Madangir, New Delhi-110062. …… Review Petitioners

¶11

-Versus-

¶12

Sri Madan Chandra Nath, S/o Sri Rajani Kanta Nath, Resident of Village- Narangabari, P.O. Boguan, P.S. Lakhipur, District- Goalpara, Assam, PIN Code-783129.

¶13

……Respondent/Writ petitioner

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶17

For the Review Petitioners : Mr. U.K. Goswami, Advocate.

¶18

For the Respondent : Mr. C. Sharma, Advocate.

¶19

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 27.10.2021

¶20

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶21

Heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.

¶22

The present petition has been filed seeking review and modification of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2124/2019, disposed of on 13.06.2019.

¶23

Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the review sought for will not touch upon the merit of the case, but is confined to the consequential benefits of the disability pension to be given to the writ petitioner.

¶24

The matter pertains to grant of disability pensionary benefit to the writ petitioner which was allowed by this Court.

¶25

The writ petitioner was discharged from service on 10.01.1992 after he was found to be not medically fit to continue in service as a Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF).

¶26

This Court after hearing the parties and considering the matter on merit, held that the writ petitioner is entitled to the disability pensionary benefit under Rule 3A(1)(a) of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. However, this Court also directed that the said benefit be given to the writ petitioner with effect from the date of discharge i.e. 10.01.1992.

¶27

Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the authorities are not disputing the liability to pay the disability pensionary benefit to the writ petitioner.

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

However, he submits that the said benefit ought not to be from the date of his discharge i.e. 10.01.1992 but for a limited period as the writ petitioner did not approach the authorities and the Court in time seeking the said benefit.

¶30

In this regard, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the review petitioners has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh , (2008) 8 SCC 648, wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where an aggrieved person belatedly approaches the Court after a long delay, the benefit cannot be given for the entire period but can be restricted to 3(three) years before the date of filing of a writ petition or from the date of demand to date of the writ petition, whichever is lesser and also not to grant any interest on arrears in such circumstances.

¶31

In this regard, learned counsel for the review petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to para No.8 of the aforesaid decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) which reads as follows:

¶32

“8. In this case, the delay of sixteen years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to sixteen years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances.”

¶33

It has been submitted by Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the review petitioners that in the present case though the petitioner was discharged on the ground of medical invalidity with effect from 10.01.1992, he never approached the authorities or the Court soon thereafter but waited for a long period to file the writ petition, which was filed only in the year 2019 and as such, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra), the benefit can be given with effect from 3(three) years prior to filing of the writ petition.

¶34

As regards this submission made by the learned counsel for the review petitioners, Mr. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner (respondent herein), however, could not give any effective response and about the delay in approaching this Court.

¶35

Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner came to

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

know about his entitlement(s) in the year 2013 and the writ petitioner submitted a notice to the authorities only on 08.11.2018 for grant of the aforesaid benefit.

¶38

Under the circumstances, this Court, keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) referred to above and since the writ petitioner belatedly approached this Court, would modify the direction of this Court given in WP(C) No. 2124/2019 on 13.06.2019 as regards the effective date of grant of the benefit.

¶39

Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent authorities to grant the disability pensionary benefit to the writ petitioner under Rule 3A(1)(a) of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules with effect from 3(three) years prior to filling of the writ petition, WP(C) No. 2124/2019.

¶40

Since the writ petition, WP(C) No. 2124/2019 was filed on 26.03.2019 as per records, the writ petitioner will be entitled to the aforesaid disability pensionary benefit w.e.f. 26.03.2016.

¶41

With the above modification of the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 2124/2019, the present review petition stands disposed of.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India and 4 Ors. v. Sri Madan Chandra Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India and 4 Ors. v. Sri Madan Chandra Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Globe India Enterprise, Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Md. Bahrul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ranjit Ghosh and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Debabrata Basu Roy Vs M/S. Ashadeep Builders Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

M/S. Ashadeep Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Deputy Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Usha Bhattacharjee and Anr. Vs M/S. Ashadeep Builders Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.