Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Mani Ram

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2010LPA/755/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal by the Union of India challenging a single judge's order that granted pension to a petitioner by condoning a 29-day deficiency in service under Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. The High Court upheld the eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The appeals filed by the Union of India were dismissed; the order dated 27.4.2009 allowing the petitioner-respondent to condone the deficiency in service and be entitled to pension was upheld.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Mani Ram — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

LPA No. 755 of 2010 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: July 5, 2010

¶5

Union of India and others

¶6

Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ex LNK DSC Mani Ram …Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶11

Present: Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Central Govt. Counsel, for the appellants.

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶15

This appeal by Union of India and its officers, filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, challenges order dated 27.4.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 11769 of 2007.

¶16

It is undisputed that Regulation 125 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, categorically provides for condonation of deficiency in service for eligibility to service pension/reservist pension. According to the provisions a fraction of a year equal to 3 months and above but less than six months is required to be treated as half year i.e. six months. The petitioner-respondent was deficient in qualifying service by a period of 29 days as he had

¶17

LPA No. 755 of 2010

¶18

¶19

rendered 14 years and 336 days service, which was less than 15 years. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Salwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 19101 of 2006, decided on 29.7.2008) , wherein similar Rules/instructions were subject matter of consideration, has allowed the petition by extending the benefit of condonation of deficiency in service. Accordingly, the petitioner has been made eligible by condoning the period of 29 days and has been held entitled to pension.

¶20

The only argument raised in support of the appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants is that vide letter dated 26.11.1962 (R-5), Adjutant General has clarified that Regulation 125 of the Pension Regulations Part-I, 1961, was not to be applicable for enhancement of pension and the rule was not to apply to individuals who have already earned a pension. The argument seems to be that the petitioner-respondent having earned pension by rendering service from 13.6.1963 to 1.12.1978 would not be entitled to condonation of 29 days for earning enhanced pension.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that the letter dated 26.11.1962 (R-5), would not come to the rescue of the appellant-Union of India because firstly the letter written by the Adjutant General cannot make any amendment in the Pension Regulations framed by the statutory authorities. The Adjutant General is a persona non grata and not competent to alter Regulation 125 of the Pension Regulations. Moreover, a strict

¶22

LPA No. 755 of 2010

¶23

¶24

interpretation of the communication dated 26.11.1962 (R-5) would show that the benefit of Regulation 125 is not to be extended for enhancement of pension. There is no question of any enhancement in the present case but the question pertains to earning of pension for the service rendered by the petitioner-respondent from 28.5.1984 to 31.7.1999 (a period of 94 days was not considered as qualifying period as he had over-stayed the leave). Consequently, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal.

¶25

As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and

¶26

the same is dismissed.

¶27

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶28

(A.N. JINDAL) July 5, 2010 JUDGE

¶29

Pkapoor

Union of India and Ors. v. Mani Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Mani Ram

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

Mohinder Singh Vs Commissioner S.B.S Nagar and Ors.

Karam Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Mohinder Singh

P. Dhanna Pal @ Dhan Pal Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

UOI and Ors. Vs Dhan Dev

Kailash Garg Vs Chd.Housingh Board Chd. and Ors.