Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sham Singh vs Union Of India And Anr. on 26 November, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 J AND K 868
Bench: Rajesh Bindal, Tashi Rabstan
1
Sr. No. 4
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
LPASW No. 166/2017 in
SWP No. 684/2014
Date of Judgment:- 26.11.2018
Sham Singh vs Union of India and Anr.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
Appearance:
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Parimoksh Seth, CGSC.
i. Whether approved for : Yes/No
reporting in Press/Media
ii. Whether to be reported in : Yes/ No
Digest/Journal
Per Rajesh Bindal-J
1. The appellant, who served in Paramilitary Force, is seeking indulgence of this Court to award him pension, after fixing his pay properly. He retired as Inspector from Central Reserve Police Force (for short "CRPF" hereinafter). As mentioned in the writ petition filed way back in the year 2014, he claimed himself to be 76 years old. Meaning thereby that presently, he must be about 80 years of age. We need to be considerate to our forces including the paramilitary force and security personnel, who always remain ready to serve the nation and many times sacrifice their lives for the purpose.
2. Aggrieved against the order dated 01.03.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, the present intra-court appeal LPASW No. 166/2017 Page 1 of 5 2 has been preferred. The petitioner/appellant herein had approached this Court by filing the writ petition, seeking rectification in the pension being paid to him after revision thereof as per the 6 th Pay Commission. The facts as noticed in the order passed by the learned Single Judge narrate that the appellant was appointed as Constable with CRPF on 21.07.1960. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Naik/Radio Operator w.e.f. 29.01.1964 and to the post of Head Constable/Radio Operator w.e.f. 16.05.1972. He was further promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector/Radio Operator w.e.f. 31.08.1984 and Inspector/Radio Operator w.e.f. 06.06.1994. As Inspector/Radio Operator, he was drawing salary in the pay scale of ₹1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900. After attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant retired from service on 31.08.1996. His pension was fixed at ₹ 946/- w.e.f. 01.09.1996. His pension was revised to ₹ 2830/-, however, subsequently with retrospective effect from 01.09.1996, his pension was revised to ₹ 2928/- vide order dated 18.04.2000. Subsequent revision of pension of the appellant was ₹ 6750/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006, on implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report.
3. The appellant had been raising grievance regarding correct fixation of his pension w.e.f. 01.09.1996 after the anomaly in the pay scale of the post on which he was working, was removed. His claim was rejected vide Communication dated 23.12.2011, which was challenged by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge finding no merit in the writ petition dismissed the same. The order has been impugned by filing the present intra-court appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant retired from service on 31.08.1996 as Inspector/Radio Operator. At the time of LPASW No. 166/2017 Page 2 of 5 3 retirement in terms of pay scales, he was getting Pay Scale of ₹ 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900, the corresponding revised pay scale of which w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was ₹ 5500-9000. However, on a representation made by the officers/officials, working in CRPF, anomaly in their pay scales was removed and the pay scale of Inspector was revised to ₹ 2000-3200 instead of ₹ 1640-2900. It was pre-revised pay scale effective prior to the year 1996. After revision of the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996, corresponding to the pay scale of ₹ 2000-3200, the revised pay scale was ₹ 6500-10,500. The appellant only claims that he having retired on 31.08.1996, after revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996, he should have been granted pension calculated in terms of the above revised pay scale. There was no reason to make new pay scales effective from 10.10.1997 instead of 01.01.1996.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant retired from service as Inspector in terms of pay scale admissible to him before his retirement, he was given his salary and consequently his pension was also fixed. It was only subsequently by the order passed with approval of his Excellency-the President of India that the anomaly in the pay scales was corrected vide order dated 10.10.1997. The aforesaid order clearly provides that the same shall be effective from the date of issue and for the period from 01.01.1996 till the issuance of the order, the pay in the revised scales will be regulated in terms of the provisions of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997. As the aforesaid order regarding revision of pay scale of Inspector is effective from 10.10.1997 and the appellant had retired from service on 31.08.1996, the same will not be applicable in his case. Hence, there is no error in fixation of pension of the appellant.
LPASW No. 166/2017 Page 3 of 5 46. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
7. The undisputed facts on record are that the appellant, who served the paramilitary force and is presently about 80 years of age, retired from service on 31.08.1996, on attaining the age of superannuation as Inspector. He was being paid salary in the scale of ₹ 1640-2900, prior to revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the revised scale was ₹ 5500-9000. However, issue was raised by the officers working with the CRPF regarding anomaly in their pay scales. It was claimed that the State Police Officials were getting better salaries. By an order passed with the approval of His Excellency-the President of India, the anomaly in pay scales was removed. The Inspectors were granted pay scale of ₹ 2000-3200 instead of ₹ 1640-2900 (un-revised). The corresponding revised pay scale of ₹ 2000-3200 was ₹ 6500-10,500. The anomaly was removed vide order dated 10.10.1997. It was mentioned therein that the same will be effective from the date of issuance of the order though anomaly was removed even for the period prior to the pay revision of 1996. The officers, who were in service after the anomaly was removed certainly got the benefits thereof. However, the persons like the appellant, who retired after the pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996, were deprived of that benefit. Once the anomaly in the pay scales was removed even for the period prior to the revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, in our opinion, a member of the paramilitary force should not be deprived of the benefit thereof for the purpose of fixation of pension.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, present appeal is accepted. Impugned order dated 01.03.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Appellant is held entitled to fixation of his pension in the revised pay LPASW No. 166/2017 Page 4 of 5 5 scale, as determined after removal of the anomaly. However, the arrears shall be restricted to the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
(TASHI RABSTAN) (RAJESH BINDAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu
26.11.2018
Ram Krishan
LPASW No. 166/2017 Page 5 of 5