Patna High Court - Orders
Sudhakar Tiwari vs The Union Of India & Ors on 7 July, 2014
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16962 of 2013
======================================================
1. Sudhakar Tiwari Son Of Dharamdeo Tiwari Resident Of Village Sisai,
Post Dumarsan Bangra, P.S. Masrakh, District- Saran
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Chief of Army
2. The Director General, Medical Services, Army, Army Head Quarter '2'
Block, New Delhi- 110001
3. The Director, Office of C.D.A. (Pension), Allahabad
4. The Treasury Officer, Chapra, Saran
5. The Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr N.A.Shamsi, ASG
Mr. Manikant Mishra, GP 25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL ORDER
6 07-07-2014Petitioner retired as a Havildar from Army Medical Corps way back on 1.11.1987. He got his pension as per his entitlement which is not the core issue in dispute. The problem has arisen after Hon'ble the President of India granted him the rank of Honorary Naib Subedar on the occasion of Independence Day in the year 1988. The benefit which he is looking for on the basis of the honorary rank is the main issue.
It is evident from pleadings as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that all such Honorary Naib Subedars were also given the benefit of Rs.100. When the 6th Pay Revision Committee gave recommendation, one of the recommendation made was that even Honorary Naib Subedar Patna High Court CWJC No.16962 of 2013 (6) dt.07-07-2014 2/4 would be treated to have earned substantive promotion. Not for other purposes but for the purposes of pension. But there was a rider therein. The rider was that the benefit will accrue to all such persons, who retired after 1.1.2006. The reason is obvious because that was the date from which recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee came into effect.
Petitioner now raises a grievance that there is discrimination. Similarly situated persons merely because they superannuated prior to 1.1.2006, have been taken out of the ambit of such benefit whereas those, who have retired after 1.1.2006, have drawn the advantage.
The recommendation of Pay Revision Committee will always be contemporaneous in nature and in most of the circumstances will be prospective. This is rather unfortunate that such benefit was never contemplated and extended by previous Pay Revision Committees and, therefore, petitioner could not derive the benefit but shifting the date to yet another date to bring the petitioner within the ambit of such recommendation would be an uncalled for exercise and cannot be permissible merely because petitioner is not being treated at par with some of his colleagues, who have superannuated after 1.1.2006.
The Court, however, expresses its reservation on Patna High Court CWJC No.16962 of 2013 (6) dt.07-07-2014 3/4 withdrawal of a sum of Rs.100 which was extended to all such beneficiaries, who were conferred honorary promotion. After the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee was notified, this amount seems to have merged in the pension of such beneficiaries. So far so good. But it is arbitrary and irrational on the part of the Union of India to take away the benefit of Rs.100 even from those persons, who could not derive the benefit of 6th Pay Revision Committee recommendation. The least which the Union of India could have done as a matter of policy was to continue payment of the token amount of Rs.100 to all such honorary Naib Subedar, even if they did not come within the ambit of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee effective 1.1.2006. They cannot be discriminated twice over by first excluding them, which per se cannot be said to be arbitrary and then not paying Rs.100 per month because this amount was merged in the pension of some beneficiaries who retired after 1.1.2006. This action would be per see arbitrary, especially when such persons are not deriving the benefit of pension due to such notional promotion and the above benefit was conferred as part of notional promotion.
The writ application is allowed to the extent that the respondents will continue releasing the notional amount of Patna High Court CWJC No.16962 of 2013 (6) dt.07-07-2014 4/4 Rs.100 in favour of the petitioner from the period it was stopped till such entitlement continues. But the claim with regard to pension etc. in terms of the 6th Pay Revision Committee has to be negated.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U