Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Isub Ali Khan vs Union Of India on 26 March, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 4340/2019
Isub Ali Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Kaushik.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, ASG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 26/03/2019 Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by the Delhi High Court in Dev Sharma v. ITBP : W.P.(C) No.1951/2012, decided on 31.01.2019, wherein provisions of Rule 43 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 were held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and submitted that as the petitioner is due to retire on 31.03.2019, the order issued in this regard Annex.-1 be stayed.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on caveat made submissions that the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Delhi High Court has been clarified by the said Court on 04.02.2019 in Ram Chander Kasania & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.: W.P.(C) 695/2019 & CM Appl.No. 3038/2019, wherein the application made by an officer, who was similarly situated to the petitioner herein and was due to retire on 28.02.2019, the Court directed as under:-
"4. It is pointed out by Mr. Chibber, learned counsel for the Petitioners, that no Pension Payment Orders (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 04:59:10 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-4340/2019] (PPOs) are being issued to those like the present Petitioners who have either superannuated during the pendency of the decision in Dev Sharma v. ITBP (supra) stating that it would have to await the consequential steps to be taken pursuant to the said decision. Mr. Chibber points out that one administrative difficulty as a result of the said decision is that no PPO can be issued unless a final decision is taken by the Respondents on the uniform age of superannuation. This means that persons such as the Petitioners would receive no pension and other retiral benefits in the meanwhile.
5. In order to ensure that till such time the Respondents take the consequential steps for implementing the above judgment, no inconvenience is caused to such of those members of the CAPFs who superannuate in terms of the Rules as they existed prior to the judgment in Dev Sharma v. ITBP (supra), it is clarified that the Respondents will continue to issue PPOs in respect of such members of the CAPFs as and when they superannuate on the basis of Rules as they stood prior to the judgment.
However, in the event that the Respondents decide, by way of implementation of the judgment, that the uniform age of superannuation would be 60 years or any age beyond 57 years, then depending on the date from which the change will take effect, the direction of this Court in para 72 of the judgment that it would not have the effect of reinstatement of those who have already retired would not come in the way of the Respondents deciding to reinstate such of those members of the CAPFs who would not have reached the uniform age of superannuation as determined. The Respondents will issue appropriate consequential orders at that stage.
6. With the above clarification, the petition and application are disposed of in terms of the judgement dated 31st January, 2019 Dev Sharma v. ITBP (supra). This clarification would apply to all those covered by the judgment of this Court in Dev Sharma v. ITBP (supra)."
Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to minutes of meeting dated 27.02.2019 and 06.03.2019, submitted that the officers of the respondents have already taken a decision to enhance the age of superannuation from 57 to 60 years.
Having considered the submissions made, in view of the clarification by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Chander Kasania (supra), for the time being no interim (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 04:59:10 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-4340/2019] orders are required to be passed as petitioner would also be governed by the decision taken by the respondents in light of the clarification.
Reply, if any, be filed by the respondents within a period of four weeks.
List after four weeks.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 257-PKS/-
(Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 04:59:10 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)