Allowed

Sohan Singh v. Union of India etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2014LPA/232/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Letters Patent Appeal, the bench allowed the appellant's petition granting him five years service weightage for pension on parity with Air Force Tribunal orders that struck down an exclusionary note. The court remitted arrears for delayed payment.

What did the court decide?

Allow appeal on consent terms; grant benefit of five years service on parity; remitter arrears within three months.

Sohan Singh Vs Union of India etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.232 of 2006 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 02.04.2014

¶3

T.J.-3085 Ex-Sub. (Hony. Capt.) Sohan Singh

¶4

…..Appellant

¶5

versus

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI

¶9

Present: Mr. B.S. Sehgal, Advocate for the appellant

¶10

Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for UOI/ respondents

¶11

SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)

¶12

The appellant served the Indian Army in the rank of a Personnel Below Officer Rank (PBOR) from 5.12.1963 till his discharge on 27.9.1981 in the rank of a Naib Subedar, rendering 17 years and 297 days of service. It is an undisputed fact before us that in terms of the Circular dated 3.2.1998 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence qua implementation of the recom mendations of the Fifth Central Pay Com mission regarding pensionary benefits, a PBOR is to get the benefit of weightage of five years of service. However, this is qualified by a Note that there will be no weightage for officers and PBORs of the Territorial Arm y. The appellant gave an option to join the Territorial Army and, after more than five years, was re-em ployed in Territorial Army on 8.5.1987 where he continued to serve till 31.1.1997 for a period of 10 years and 238 days as well as 53 days of embodied service.

¶13

Chand Parkash 2014.04.03 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

LPA- 232 - 2006

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

The grievance of the appellant was that the respondents had not released the service pension to him as also gratuity and comm utation of pension on the ground of pension account being overdrawn. This issue was settled in favour of the appellant, who is granted interest for the delayed period by the learned single Judge. The other issue raised by the appellant was on account of the fact that the appellant was not being granted weightage of five years and, thus, the total qualifying service of the appellant was being treated as 28 years instead of 33 years. On this aspect, the learned single Judge opined against the appellant. The Civil Writ Petition No.2667 of 2003 of the appellant was, thus, disposed of by the learned single Judge granting one prayer of the appellant as per the impugned order dated 27.9.2006.

¶17

It is the finding qua the second aspect which has given cause to the appellant to approach this Court.

¶18

The only reason given for denying the benefit to the appellant is the Note, referred to aforesaid, in terms whereof no weightage is to be given to officers and PBORs of the Territorial Army.

¶19

It is accepted before us that the Principal Bench of the Air Force Tribunal, New Delhi, in O.A. No.165 of 2010, decided on 19.12.2012, struck down the said Note and similarly issued directions giving the relief to all similarly situated persons. We are also informed that a Special Leave Petition has been preferred before the Hon’ble Suprem e Court which has not even been listed yet and that the relief has been granted to the concerned persons subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition. We are further informed that on parity, relief was granted in O.A. No.205 of 2010 where in terms of the order dated

¶20

Chand Parkash 2014.04.03 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

LPA- 232 - 2006

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

5.2.2014, it has been observed that the relief was not in personam but in rem and such relief must be granted to all similarly situated persons.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid position, it is agreed that the appellant be also granted benefit of five years service on parity subject to any result which m ay arise in case the Hon’ble Supreme Court opines to the contrary.

¶25

The appeal is accordingly disposed of on consent terms as

¶26

set out hereinabove.

¶27

The arrears be remitted to the appellant within a period of three months from today.

¶28

( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL ) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶29

02.04.2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) parkash* JUDGE

¶30

Chand Parkash 2014.04.03 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sohan Singh v. Union of India etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Singh v. Union of India etc.

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

Nasib Pathania Vs U.T. & Ors.

M/S Shree Ganpati Logistics Company Vs Fci

M/S Shree Ganesh Transport Company Vs Fci

Preeti Vs Hafed and Ors.

Punjab State Coop. Supply & Mktg. Fed. Ltd. &Anr. Vs Rakesh Misra and Ors.

Uday Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.