Disposed

Prem Chand v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Mar 2024CWP/4166/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A CRPF constable invalidated with 95% disability after a train bomb blast sought reclassification of his extraordinary pension from Category 'D' to Category 'E'. The respondents undertook to decide his representation within three months, whereupon the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on respondents' statement that the petitioner's representation dated 29.09.2023 would be decided within three months.

Prem Chand Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

CWP-4166-2024

2024:PHHC:041687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

115 CWP-4166-2024

¶6

Date of Decision : 22.03.2024

¶7

PREM CHAND … PETITIONER

¶8

Versus

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ... RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶11

Present : Mr.Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Arihant Goyal, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondents-UOI.

¶13

¶14

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking directions to the respondents to grant disability pension under Category ‘E’ instead of Category ‘D’ of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939.

¶16

The petitioner was enrolled on 07.07.1991 in CRPF as Constable. He on 25.02.1995 along with other members of Armed Forces was travelling by train No.5908 Brahmaputra Mail. A bomb blasted in the said train while it was passing through Assam bordering Nagaland. In the said incident, 06 officials were killed and 05 including the petitioner were seriously injured. The petitioner continued to perform his duties till 2021. The respondent vide order dated 29.01.2022 invalidated him because he was assessed 95% disability. He was granted extraordinary pension under Category ‘D’.

¶17

Mr. Ujwal Anand, Advocate submits that case of the petitioner falls under Category ‘E’ as contemplated by office memorandum dated 03.02.2000

¶18

Anju Goel 2024.04.01 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-4166-2024

2024:PHHC:041687

(Annexure P-6) and 10.12.2010 (Annexure P-7) whereas respondent has wrongly classified him under Category ‘D’. He has filed representation dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure P-9) but to no avail. He further submits that grievance of the petitioner, at this stage, would be redressed, if respondents are directed to consider representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner.

¶23

Notice of motion.

¶24

Mr. Arihant Goyal, Sr. Panel Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents-UOI and submits that representation dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner would be decided within 3 months from today.

¶25

In the wake of statement of counsel for the respondents-UOI, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶27

22.03.2024

¶28

anju

¶29

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶30

Anju Goel 2024.04.01 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Prem Chand v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand 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

Sonu Ram Vs Indian Overseas Bank and Others

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Kanhaiya Lal Kalra Vs Bhakra Beas Management Board

Deva Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Karamjit Kaur Vs Union of India and Others