Allowed

Mukhtiar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Aug 2010CWP/7109/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order suspending the petitioner's pension without prior notice, holding that a notice specifying proposed action and grounds is mandatory under Army Pension Regulations.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 29.8.2008 suspending the petitioner's pension was quashed; respondents directed to pass fresh order after issuing notice and holding a proper hearing.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.W.P.No. 7109 of 2009.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.W.P.No. 7109 of 2009. Date of Decision:- 16.8.2009.

Mukhtiar Singh

Petitioner.

VERSUS

Union of India and others

¶9

Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI.

¶11

Present: Mr.Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.G.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

RITU BAHRI,J.

¶16

The petitioner in this writ petition is 70 years old pensioner from the Army. He was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 23.12.1989. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 5.8.2000. The judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, he was arrested on 27.9.2003 and remained

¶17

C.W.P.No. 7109 of 2009.

¶18

¶19

behind the bars till 8.7.2006. The respondents suspended the pension of the petitioner which was restored that too, after making recovery of Rs.2,19,729/-. This recovery has been made on account of conviction period with effect from 23.12.1989 to December, 2003.

¶20

The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release full pension and not to make any recovery. The petitioner in the writ petition has placed reliance upon para No. 4 of the Army Pension Regulation Part 1. The same is reproduced below:-

¶21

“ 4. Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of a pension or allowance and its continuance under these Regulations.

¶22

Note for the Readers:- (1) The competent authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.

¶23

Provided that where a part of pension is with held or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five per month.

¶24

(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a court of law, or is found guilty of grave misconduct, action under (1) above shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to

¶25

C.W.P.No. 7109 of 2009.

¶26

¶27

such conviction.

¶28

(3) In cases falling under (2) above, as well as other cases where the competent authority consider that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, the competent authority before passing an order under (1) above shall.

¶29

(a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken against him and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by the competent authority, such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal, and

¶30

(b) take into account consideration of the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under clause (a).”

¶31

A bare perusal of it clearly shows that it was mandatory to issue notice to the petitioner before suspending the pension. This point has specifically been raised in paragraph 8 sub clause (ii) of the writ petition and in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, this fact has not been denied.

¶32

On this ground, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure P-6) is hereby

¶33

¶34

C.W.P.No. 7109 of 2009.

¶35

quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate steps to pass fresh order after issuing the notice and giving proper hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶36

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶37

(M.M. KUMAR ) 16.8.2010 JUDGE Anoop

Mukhtiar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtiar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karambir Vs State of Haryana etc.

Dr Mrs Janak Narendra Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rohtas Singh Vs UOI etc.

Ruchi Manglik and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Chander Prakash Vs State of Haryana and Anr.