Allowed

Satyawan Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2009CWP/10385/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by retired Army personnel seeking fixation of pensionary benefits based on revised pay scale. Court allowed petition by applying proportion of a Division Bench judgement and restricted arrears to three years preceding filing.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of applying ratio of CWP No. 15400 of 2006; arrears of pension restricted to three years preceding filing.

Satyawan Singh Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 10385 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.11.2009.

Satyawan Singh

--Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others --Respondents

¶7

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶8

Present:Mr. Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Ranjana Shahi, C.G.S.C for respondents.

¶10

¶11

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶12

It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by a Division Bench judgement of this Court. The matter is thus being disposed of at the motion stage.

¶13

The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 30.9.1980 and retired from the army service on 30.9.1997 in the rank of Naik (TS). At the time of his retirement, he was in the pay scale of Rs. 3150-70-4200 in Group 'D'. His pensionary benefits were accordingly determined keeping in view the aforementioned pay scale. The Govt. of India introduced the 5^th Central Pay Commission, which made its recommendations, however, the question of pay scales for army personnel was forwarded to the Anomalies Committee on account of certain anomalies. The Anomalies Committee made its recommendations and the same were approved by the Govt. of India vide letter dated 21.11.1997. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendations the employees, who are in the same rank were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3600-100-5100 w.e.f 1.1.1996. Consequently, special army instruction no. 1/S/97 was issued. The petitioner is claiming the

¶14

CWP. No. 10385 of 2009

¶15

-2-

¶16

benefit of the aforesaid recommendations of the Anomalies Committee as approved by the Govt. of India and has prayed for fixation of his pensionary benefits taking into consideration his pay scale of Rs. 3600-100-5100.

¶17

The aforesaid issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 15400 of 2006 decided on 14.1.2008, wherein following observations have been made:

¶18

“ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the stand of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of removal of anomaly in the Pay Commission is wholly unjustified. It was during the implementation of 5^th Pay Commission report, it was found by the respondents that there is anomaly in the Pay Scales. Once the anomaly in the Pay Scales is found and sought to be removed then it has to be removed from the implementation of the recommendation of the Pay Commission i.e. 1.1.1996. There is no explanation as to why the said anomaly is sought to be removed from 10.10.1997. In the absence of any explanation of removal of anomaly from 10.10.1997, we do not find the action of the respondents fixing such date as justified. Consequently, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to the revised pay scale of 5620-140-8140/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Thus the petitioner shall be entitled to the retiral benefits on the said pay scale.

¶19

In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to recalculate the amount of pension on the basis of revised pay scale of 5620-140-8140/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The exercise be completed within a period of three months from today.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.”

¶21

CWP. No. 10385 of 2009

¶22

-3-

¶23

In view of the aforesaid decision, the petitioner is also entitled to the similar relief. This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. However, the payment of arrears shall be restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition.

¶24

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶25

16.11.2009 lucky

Satyawan Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyawan Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs Canara Bank and Ors.

Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab Etc.Q

Luxmi Bai Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital Vs Union of India and Anr.

Naurang Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Baldev Raj Vs Union of India & Ors.

Surjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.