Coordinate Bench allowed writ petition for widow of deceased Home Guards officer to refix pay by counting Indian Army service. Court held petition allowed, arrears released, and pension refixed.
Pay to be refixed from 01.11.1984; arrears to be paid within three months with 9% interest if delayed; family pension to be refixed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.
ORDER
Renu Mehlawat Vs. The State of Rajasthan & ors.
SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8844/2008.
Date of order 12.07.2016.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Ms. Ashish Joshi for the petitioner. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Addl. G.C. for the respondent.
The petitioner, who is wife of Late Ashok Mehlawat, has sought the issuance of mandamus to the respondents to accord refixation of pay of her husband by counting the service rendered by him in the Indian Army.
The husband of the petitioner is stated to have served in the Indian Army from 01.09.1979 to 29.09.1984. Subsequently, he was appointed as Deputy Commandant in Rajasthan Home Guards on 05.09.1985. He expired on 03.07.2006 while in service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the amendment in Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Home Guards and Civil Defence Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1976'), the pay of the husband of the petitioner should be refixed after taking into account his service rendered in the Indian Army. She has placed reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Uppal Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21449/2013 decided on 03.03.2014.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the husband of the petitioner had not applied for the benefit now claimed by his wife, while he was in service and, hence, she is not entitled to the same.
2
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
writ petition.
It is apparent from the perusal of the notification dated 28.09.1996 that Rule 6 of the Rules of 1976 was amended and Sub rules (3) and (4) were incorporated therein. This amendment was introduced to extend several benefits to ex-army personnel for refixation of their salaries. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1976 was made effective from 01.11.1984. The service rendered in the Indian Armed Forces was to be counted for service benefits.
It is apt to notice that the Finance Department (Rules) of the State of Rajasthan vide order dated 01.05.2008 had recommended for refixaton of pay of the petitioner's husband along with arrears thereon by counting the service rendered in the Indian Army as had been done in the case of other similarly situated officers.
Further, the respondents have admitted in their reply that the benefits of the afore noted amendment were extended to similarly situated persons, namely; Commandant Rajendra Singh Kachhawa, Anil Joshi, Rameshwar Lal Arya and Ravindra Singh Ranawat. It is, however, stated in the reply that these persons had also been granted arrears after refixation of pay which are being recovered from them.
As the reply had been filed in the year 2008, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to seek instructions as to whether the recovery has been actually effected from them.
Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that he has received instructions that no recovery has been effected in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Uppal (supra).
3
In the case of Vipin Kumar Uppal (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar issue had allowed the writ petition and set aside the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from the retiral dues of the petitioner therein who was an ex-serviceman and had been granted arrears upon refixation in accordance with the aforenoted amendment.
In view of above, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of the amendment in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1976.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the pay of the husband of the petitioner shall be refixed by the respondents w.e.f. 01.11.1984 and the arrears thereon shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from now, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. The family pension of the petitioner shall also be refixed accordingly.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J.
bblm
4
All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being e-mailed.
BBL Mathur Private Secretary.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the widow of an ex-army personnel is entitled to have pay refixed by counting his army service under amended Rule 6, even without a prior application while in service.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vipin Kumar Uppal Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.Relied on¶11
Vipin Kumar Uppal Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.- S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21449/2013
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Renu Mehlawat
The State of Rajasthan
Anupinder Singh Grewal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
