Delhi District Court
Ved Singh vs Union Of India on 19 November, 2013
In the Court of Sh. Parveen Singh: Senior Civil Judgecum Rent
Controller (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit. No. 506/06/97
Unique ID: 02401C0023481997.
Ved Singh,
S/o Sh. Bhim Singh,
R/o Village Harsana Kalan,
P.O. Harsana Kalan, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana. ....................... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2. Director General, BSF,
CGO Complex, Block No. 11,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Director (Accounts)
P.A.D (Resettlement Branch),
BSF, Pusa Bhawan,
New Delhi.
Suit No. 506/06/97 1 of 23
4. Commandant,
11 Bn. BSF Jarail Tala Bazar,
District Qashar, Pin788025 (Assam). .................... Defendants.
Date of Institution : 29.01.1997.
Date of Arguments: 18.11.2013.
Date of Judgment : 19.11.2013.
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT :
The present suit for mandatory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is, that the plaintiff was working as Constable with Border Security Force (BSF). He resigned and his resignation was accepted on 01.02.1982. His resignation was accepted with pension under Rule 19 of the BSF Rule 1969. Immediately on retirement/ resignation, the plaintiff raised a demand for release his dues, benefits and pension. The defendants assured to do the needful but the matter was lingered on for many years. During this period, various letters were written to the plaintiff by the defendants assuring him that his dues would be paid soon and that his pension matter would be settled and the plaintiff was found eligible for pension. The defendants intimated the Suit No. 506/06/97 2 of 23 plaintiff that he was found eligible for pension. Vide letter dated 17.04.1996, the plaintiff was asked to furnish certain documents and it was also informed to the plaintiff that the plaintiff was entitled to pensionary benefits because of acceptance of his resignation under rule 19 of BSF Rule 1969. It was also intimated to the plaintiff vide a communication of August 1996 that the pension papers had been submitted to PAD, BSF, New Delhi and he would be intimated as and when the pension was passed by the PAD, BSF, New Delhi. When the pension was not released, the plaintiff issued a statutory notice dated 29.03.1996 upon the defendants. However, the defendants did not comply with the said notice. Hence, the present suit for directing the defendants to release the retirement benefits and other dues to the plaintiff w.e.f 01.02.1982.
3. On being served with the summons for settlement of issues, the defendants filed their written statement. In the written statement, a preliminary objection is taken that this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. A further preliminary objection is taken that the suit is barred by the law of limitation as the plaintiff himself has stated that he resigned from the service in 1982. A further preliminary objection is taken that the suit is not properly valued. A further preliminary objection is taken that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not completed/ fulfilled the requirements to obtain the pensionary benefits. A further preliminary objection is taken that the suit of Suit No. 506/06/97 3 of 23 the plaintiff is not maintainable as on resignation from the service, no person is entitled for any pensionary benefits.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the case of the plaintiff was carefully examined and thereafter, having no merits in the case, the concerned authority refused/ rejected the claim of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that Rule 19 of BSF Rules 1969 does not empower any person to get pension until he has completed a period of 20 years. The plaintiff had not completed such period. It is further submitted that the case of the plaintiff was referred to Pay and Accounts Division of BSF at New Delhi and after scrutiny, it was found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any pensionary benefits. The receipt of the notice is not denied.
5. In the replication to the written statement, the contents of the written statement are denied and the contents of the plaint are reaffirmed.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 03.11.2004:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to retirement benefits, pensions and other incidental benefits? OPP.
2. If so, since when and upto which period? OPP.
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
5. Relief.
Suit No. 506/06/97 4 of 23 7. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence. The
plaintiff examined himself as PW1. On the other hand, the defendants examined Sh. Virendra Kumar, DIG BSF Bhuj Sector as DW1.
8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record very carefully. My issue wise findings are as under: ISSUES NO. 1 AND 2: (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to retirement benefits, pensions and other incidental benefits? OPP. (2)If so, since when and upto which period? OPP.
9. Appearing as PW1, the plaintiff deposed that he was working as a Constable with the defendants and submitted his resignation, which was accepted on 01.02.1982. He resigned under the rule 19 of the BSF Rules. The copy of the order dated 30.12.1981 is Ex.PW1/1. The discharge certificate dated 15.03.1983 is Ex.PW1/2. He immediately made a demand for release of funds and pension. For many years, the matter was delayed. However, later on the pension matter was settled and he was found eligible for pension by the defendants. The defendants duly intimated him that he had been found eligible for pension. Vide letter Ex.PW1/4 dated 17.04.1996, the defendants asked the plaintiff to furnish a joint passport size current photograph, personal bank account, postal address, bank's name, left hand thumb impression, two identification marks and height, specimen signature, details of members and application form no. 5. Vide letter Ex.PW1/5 dated 19.07.1996, these documents were duly furnished by the plaintiff. Vide letter Suit No. 506/06/97 5 of 23 dated 17.04.1996, the defendants had also informed the counsel for the plaintiff that the decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs in the matter of admissibility of pensionary benefits on the acceptance of resignation under Rule 19 of BSF Rule was pending due to which the matter was held up and they informed that the government had agreed for granting pensionary benefits to the BSF personnel who tendered resignation under Rule 19. The defendants also intimated him vide letter Ex.PW1/7 that his pension papers had already been submitted to PAD BSF and he would be intimated as and when the pension would be passed by PAD BSF. He also served a statutory legal notice Ex.PW1/8 dated 29.03.1996 vide postal receipts Ex.PW1/9.
10. During his cross examination, he deposed that he had joined the services on 08.10.1971 and resigned on 01.02.1982. He denied that the qualifying service for pensionary benefit was 20 years of service which was not completed by him. He denied that the claim filed by him was not maintainable under BSF Rules.
11. On the other hand, the defendants examined DW1 Sh. Virendera Kumar. DW1 deposed that he being the representative of the defendants was fully conversant with the facts of the case. He further deposed that after the completion of 10 years, 3 months and 13 days of service, the plaintiff tendered his resignation on 17.10.1981. The same was accepted by the then Commandant and the plaintiff was discharged from Suit No. 506/06/97 6 of 23 service on 01.02.1982. The pension case of the plaintiff was submitted to the Pay and Accounts Division (PAD) BSF by the unit under whom the plaintiff was working. The same was carefully examined by the concerned authorities and after observing relevant rules regarding pension as provided under law, the pension case of the plaintiff was rejected. He further deposed that resignation of a person under Rule 19 of BSF Rules does not entitle him to get pension until and unless he has completed a period of 20 years of qualifying service under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The plaintiff had not completed the said qualifying service and thus, he was not entitled or eligible for any pensionary benefits.
12. During his cross examination, he admitted that the letters Ex.PW1/14 and Ex.PW1/6 were issued by their office. He denied that the claim of the plaintiff was valid and pension of the plaintiff was wrongly denied.
13. From the above evidence as well as from the pleadings of the parties, there is not much a dispute with regard to the facts. Admittedly, the plaintiff retired under Rule 19 of BSF Rules. Meaning thereby, that the plaintiff had obtained a prior approval for tendering resignation and with that approval, he resigned from his service. Admittedly, his resignation was accepted with pensionary benefits. Admittedly, the plaintiff pursued his pension case and vide various letters, he was informed that his matter with Suit No. 506/06/97 7 of 23 regard to the pension was under process.
14. Admittedly, vide letter Ex.PW1/6, it was intimated to the plaintiff that he was found eligible for pension. Also there is no dispute that Ex.PW1/4 was sent to the plaintiff seeking certain documents from him so that his case could be processed. Also is not disputed the issuance of Ex.PW1/7, vide which it was informed to the plaintiff that his case was sent to the pension department. However, thereafter, the case of the plaintiff was rejected is also not disputed.
15. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Raj Kumar v. UOI (2006) 1 SCC 737 which had quoted the earlier decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Rakesh Kumar. Relying upon these judgments, learned counsel the defendants has submitted that the case of the plaintiff was rightly rejected. He has further contended that these two judgments clearly laid down, that Rule 19 of BSF Act does not grant any pensionary rights in case where the pension was not payable under CCS Rules. It has further been clearly laid down in the said judgment that unless a person has completed qualifying service of 20 years, he would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits and his resignation being accepted under rule 19 of BSF Rules would not entitle him to any pensionary benefit.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has Suit No. 506/06/97 8 of 23 contended that the defendants are estopped from denying pension to the plaintiff as the defendants had clearly admitted that the plaintiff was entitled to pension.
17. In view of the contentions of the parties and the admitted position of facts, the decision to be rendered by me is, whether as per the legal position, the plaintiff was entitled to any pensionary benefits or not.
18. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the judgments very carefully.
19. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) had categorized the BSF personnel in two categories and the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to these categories is as under:
17. We find that the cases before us can be divided into the following categories:
(A) Precircular. Personnel who resigned and were granted pension for special reasons, even prior to the circular dated 27.12.1995. (B) Postcircular. Personnel who resigned pursuant to the circular dated 27.12.1995. These persons can be further divided into two sub categories.
(i) Personnel who retired in 1996, were sanctioned pension and were therefore asked vide letter dated 31.10.1998 not to report for reinduction. Their pension has been stopped pursuant to the judgment in Rakesh Kumar. These persons can be further divided into two subcategories:
(a) those who are in a position to be reinducted into service Suit No. 506/06/97 9 of 23 even now; and
(b) those who cannot be reinducted into the service as a result of being age barred or due to being medically or physically unfit.
(ii) Those who retired subsequent to 1996, were not sanctioned pension, and were directed to report for reinduction into service or to forfeit pension benefits by virtue of the circular dated 17.10.1998 and the individual letters.
18. Having considered the peculiar facts arising in each of these groups, we make the following orders:
1. The personnel falling in category (B) (ii) i.e. those persons who had retired subsequent to 1996 pursuant to the circular dated 27.10.1995 and had not been sanctioned pension, but who have been directed to report for reinduction in service shall necessarily have to forfeit their pension, if they have not reported for service by virtue of the circular dated 17.10.1998. If, however, they have reported for service then there is no question of any relief in their case.
2. In the case of persons falling in category (B)( i), they shall also be given the option of reinduction into service and those falling in category (B) (i) (a) shall be so reinducted, subject to the conditions stipulated in the circular dated 17.10.1998 and on condition that they shall refund GPF and pension amounts drawn by them till reinduction. The authorities shall indicate the deadline by which such persons shall offer themselves for reinduction.
3. In the case of persons who shall fall in category B(i) (b) i.e. persons who had retired in 1996, were sanctioned pension but who cannot be reinducted today as they are age barred or physically or medically unfit or for any other reason including their inability to return the amount of GPF, pension drawn or other dues, there shall be no question of continuing payment of pension which shall be liable to Suit No. 506/06/97 10 of 23 cease as a result of the decision in Rakesh Kumar. We are however of the view that equity demands that in such cases there shall be no recovery of the pension amounts already paid to them.
4. In cases which fall under category (A) i.e. personnel who had resigned prior to the circular dated 27.12.1995 and had been granted pension for special reasons and continued to draw it till the stoppage of pension as a result of the judgment in Rakesh Kumar we think that irrespective of the position in law, equity demands that, as they have drawn their pension for long periods, they shall not be asked to refund their drawn pension amounts, nor shall their pension be stopped now.
20. It is a clear case that the plaintiff had not resigned pursuant to the circular dated 27.12.1995 whereby the Director General BSF had informed the personnel that if they resigned under Rule 19 of BSF Rules, they would be entitled to pension. The plaintiff had resigned much prior to the issuance of the said circular. The circular was issued on 27.12.1995. The resignation of the plaintiff was accepted on 01.02.1982.
21. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff is not covered under any of the sub categories of category B. However, the case of the plaintiff is also not covered in category A because although the plaintiff had resigned prior to the issuance of circular dated 27.12.1995 but, the pension of the plaintiff was not released. Had the plaintiff already been receiving the pension, his right would have been protected by this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The case of the plaintiff now becomes a very peculiar case. On the Suit No. 506/06/97 11 of 23 one hand, the plaintiff is a person who should be falling in category A because he had resigned prior to the circular of 1995. On the other hand, the plaintiff is not covered under category A because at the time of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra), he was not receiving any pension. However, as is evident from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra), the personnel of BSF who prior to the circular dated 27.12.1995 had resigned under Rule 19 of BSF Rules were being granted pension and this pension was protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra).
22. It has also been admitted by learned counsel for the defendant during the course of arguments that the personnel who had resigned under rule 19 of BSF rules around the time at which the plaintiff had resigned were granted pensionary benefits and are continuing to get pensionary benefits. Therefore, it is apparent that the persons, who were situated similar to the plaintiff were granted benefits of pension. These persons had also not completed the qualifying service of 20 years but as they had resigned under rule 19 of BSF Rules, they were granted pensions. Had the authorities not dilly dallied this issue of the plaintiff for 14 long years, the case of the plaintiff would have been covered under category A of the Raj Kumar's case (supra).
23. Faced with this peculiar situation and to reach at a just Suit No. 506/06/97 12 of 23 conclusion, the court in exercise of its powers under section 165 of Evidence Act asked the defendants to file an affidavit before the court specifying the names of the persons/ employees who had taken retirement under Rule 19 of BSF Rules between 01.01.1981 to 01.01.1984 and also to state whether any of these persons had been granted pension and, if anyone of them had been granted pension, all details thereof. Pursuant to the same, the first affidavit was filed before the court on 09.09.2013. Alongwith the same, details were filed as per annexure D1. The plaintiff's case was found mentioned at sl. no.
9. It was stated that the resignation of the plaintiff was accepted with pension. However, the Pay and Accounts Department of BSF did not release the pension and returned the pension case of the plaintiff vide letter dated 16.06.1982 under Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 which entails forfeiture of past service on resignation. Accordingly, the plaintiff was informed with the directions to rejoin the services but he did not join. Then at sl. no. 148, the case of Carp Jaswant Singh was mentioned who, as per the annexure D1, had retired on 01.03.1983 and his resignation was accepted with pension and his pension was released. His date of entry in service was later on informed to the court as 29.12.1971. Then at sl. no. 210 was the case of Ct. Y. Mathew, who had joined the service on 28.05.1973 and resigned on 01.02.1982 and, his pension was released by PAD, BSF. Then at sl. no. 217 was mentioned the case of Lnk D. Subanu Rao, who had joined the service on 1.06.1969 and resigned on 08.02.1982 with pension and PAD, BSF had Suit No. 506/06/97 13 of 23 released his pension. At sl. no. 218, case of WM Ram Singh was mentioned, who had joined service on 13.11.1971 and his resignation with pension was accepted on 16.08.1983 and the PAD, BSF had released his pension.
24. When these four cases were seen by the court, some time was sought on behalf of the BSF to give clarifications. The clarifications were submitted on 18.11.2013. It is stated that in the case of Ct. Y. Mathew mentioned at sl. no. 210 in annexure D1, his pension was released as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Karnatka High Court vide judgment dated 17.01.1992. As regards Lnk D. Subanu Rao, it is stated that pension was released to him pursuant to the judgment dated 17.01.1992 passed by Hon'ble Karnatka High Court in WP no. 9773 of 1990 in case of T.A. Arsanal.
Pursuant to that judgment, similar benefit was granted to Lnk. D. Subanu Rao. In case of WM Ram Singh mentioned at sl. no. 218, it is submitted that it was wrongly stated in Annexure D1 that any pension had been granted to him. As regards Carp. Jaswant Singh mentioned at sl. no. 148, it is stated that his resignation was accepted by the competent authority without pensionary benefits. However, he filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for grant of pension under Rule 19 of BSF Rules and in compliance of the judgment dated 09.07.1996 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, his resignation order was modified as accepted with pension benefits w.e.f 28.02.1983 and accordingly, pension was released to this individual.
Suit No. 506/06/97 14 of 23
25. As already discussed above, the case of the plaintiff is very peculiar. Had the department not delayed his matter unnecessarily, he would have been covered under Category A of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) but the department kept delaying the matter. The department had accepted the resignation of the plaintiff with pensionary benefits. The question before this court is, should the department have granted pension to the plaintiff? Was the department unjust and discriminating against the plaintiff in not granting the pensionary benefits to him? In exercise of its power under section 165 of Evidence Act, the court called for the details of the persons who had resigned in the same provision as that of the plaintiff and had been granted pensionary benefits despite not completing the qualifying service of 20 years. From the Annexure D1, four cases as discussed above were found. Of these, by further clarifications filed on 18.11.2013, one person namely WM Ram Singh was found to have not been granted pension. In case of Ct. Y. Mathew and Lnk D. Subanu Rao, it was stated that the pensionary benefits were granted to them pursuant to the judgment of Hon'ble Karnatka High Court. The copy of the said judgment, though not legible, had been filed by the defendants before the court. Surprisingly, both these persons were not the parties to this writ petition. The defendants on their own extended the pension benefits of the said judgment to these two persons. Article 14 of the Constitution mandates that Suit No. 506/06/97 15 of 23 the State cannot discriminate between its subjects. Therefore, if in one case or two cases, as discussed above, this pension benefit could be granted then why this benefit was not extended to the plaintiff. It has not been explained that why while extending the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble Karnatka High Court in T. Arsanal's case, the plaintiff was treated as a class in himself and declined the same benefit which was granted by the defendants to Ct. Y. Mathew and Lnk. D. Subanu Rao. In absence of any explanation or reasonable classification, the decision to grant pension to Ct. Y. Mathew and Lnk. D. Subanu Rao and to decline it to the plaintiff, smacks of arbitrariness.
26. As regards Carp. Jaswant Singh, the plea taken is that the pension was released to this person pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in WP titled Jaswant Singh v. UOI. The copy of that order was filed before the court on 18.11.2013 by the defendants. I have perused the said order. Surprisingly, it was not the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court which asked the defendants to release pension to Carp. Jaswant Singh, but it is very clear from the order dated 09.07.1996, that the defendants had themselves conceded that they were ready to grant the pension to Jaswant Singh. Here again, why the case of the plaintiff was not considered at par with the case of Jaswant Singh has not been explained before the court. No facts distinguishing the case of the plaintiff from the Suit No. 506/06/97 16 of 23 case of Jaswant Singh, Y. Mathew and D. Subanu Rao have been placed before the court.
27. The three persons who were granted pensionary benefits by the defendants as per their whimsical sweetwill were not having any better case than the plaintiff. All these persons including the plaintiff had not put 20 years service. In fact, one of these persons namely Ct. Y. Mathew had put lesser years in service than the years put in by the plaintiff.
28. Thus, it is apparent that the plaintiff cannot be said to be a class in himself which can reasonably be separated from the three others. Article 14 of the Constitution protects a citizen of India from discriminatory and arbitrary exercise of power and any such action is liable to be struck down as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP, (1991) 1 SCC 2012 had held that ''reasonable and non arbitrary exercise of discretion is an in built requirement of law and any unreasonable and arbitrary act violates Article 14.''
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N held that:
''Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be 'cribbed, cabined and confined' within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic Suit No. 506/06/97 17 of 23 point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14.''
31. The executive decision as taken should apply equally amongst equals. In case different decisions/ rules are applied to similarly situated persons, there has to be a reasonable classification.
32. The Constitution Bench of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Hashia v. Khalid Mujib has held that such a classification has to be a reasonable classification. The lordships have held that:
If the classification is not reasonable and does not satisfy the two conditions i.e.[(i) intelligible differentia and (i) rational relation between the differentia and the object sought], the impugned legislation or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and the guarantee of equality under Article 14 would be breached. Wherever therefore there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an ''authority'' under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action.
33. As discussed above, the decision of the defendants to grant pensionary benefits to three persons named above and many others who had retired around the same time as that of the plaintiff and not to grant these benefits to the plaintiff without there being any rational basis for such Suit No. 506/06/97 18 of 23 differentiation are on the face of it arbitrary and discriminatory.
34. Therefore, if the law as discussed above and as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court is applied to the facts of the present case, the defendants have glaringly failed to exercise the discretion in a just and equitable manner. The decision to grant pensionary benefits to some persons, who were equally situated to the plaintiff and denying the same to the plaintiff, without there being any intelligible differentia, was arbitrary and whimsical and is liable to be struck down by Article 14 of the Constitution.
35. Another fact which is noteworthy is that the defendants while filing an affidavit alongwith Annexure D1 had stated in Annexure DI that the plaintiff had been asked to rejoin the service but he failed to do so. However, on being inquired, it was clearly informed to the court that the defendants cannot prove that any such offer was made to the plaintiff. Here again, the defendants not only failed to grant pensionary benefits to the plaintiff but they also did not offer the plaintiff to rejoin the service as was mandated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar's case (supra).
36. Therefore, the decision of the defendants in not granting the pensionary benefits to the plaintiff being whimsical, arbitrary and discriminating, is liable to be overturned.
37. However, before doing so, I have to take into consideration the Suit No. 506/06/97 19 of 23 judgment filed by learned counsel for the defendants in case of Ranjit Singh (supra). Relying upon this judgment, learned counsel for the defendants has argued that in a similar case, the Hon'ble High Court had refused to grant pension.
38. I have carefully gone through this judgment and specifically the paras 26 to 29 of the judgment. The same are being reproduced as under:
26. Thus, it can sufficiently be said that all those to whom no pension was released and had retired pre 1995 would be entitled to no relief.
27. Qua those who retired pre 1995 and pension was released, in law the decision to stop pension is to be treated as legal and binding. This is the finding of the Supreme Court. It is settled law that the power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties is not available to the High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. Thus, we express our inability to grant any relief to the petitioner at par with the relief which was granted by the Supreme Court for the reason the Supreme Court did not grant relief finding legal right in favour of the petitioners before the Supreme Court. Relief was granted by the Supreme Court in exercise of its power to do complete justice vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
29. It may be said that our present decision is a passport to the petitioners to beseech their Lordships of the Supreme Court to do complete justice to them in exercise of the power vested in their Lordships of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Suit No. 506/06/97 20 of 23
39. A careful reading of these paragraphs clearly brings out the intent of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble High Court found that justice and equity required that the petitioners before it be treated at par with others who were similarly placed and been granted pension. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court found that the persons who were granted pension prior to 1995 and were in category A, their rights were protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a matter of equity It is more so because the Hon'ble High Court had held its decision to be a passport for the petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court for seeking complete justice based on equity.. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court found itself unable to give pensionary benefits to the petitioners before it on the premise that it did not have the power to do complete justice as are vested in the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. However, Section 151 of CPC provides inherent power to this court to make any order necessary for the ends of justice. This power includes the power to do equity and strike down any arbitrary decision which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. I accordingly find that when others who were similarly placed had been granted pensionary benefits and the plaintiff was declined those benefits without there being any reasonable classification, on the basis of which he was treated as a separate class from others, that order is liable to be overturned. In view of the above discussions, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to the retirement benefits and pension from the date of acceptance Suit No. 506/06/97 21 of 23 of his resignation. The issues are accordingly disposed of. ISSUE NO. 3: Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
40. The defendants' case is, that the plaintiff retired in the year 1982 and filed the present suit in the year 1997 and thus, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. However, there is no denial that the plaintiff had been pursuing his case and various letters were issued to him. There is also no denial to the issuance of letter Ex.PW1/6 wherein it was informed to him that he was found entitled to pension and he was asked to bring requisite documents. There is no denial that the letter Ex.PW1/7 was issued in August 1996 and sent to the plaintiff. Vide the said letter, it was intimated to the plaintiff that his matter was under process. There is no denial that thereafter, the case of the plaintiff was rejected. Therefore, the cause of action to file the present suit would only arise after the case of the plaintiff was finally rejected by the authorities. It was done somewhere in the year 1996 and therefore, the present suit, which has been filed in the year 1997, is well within the period of limitation. The issue no. 3 is accordingly disposed of.
ISSUE NO. 4:Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.
41. A preliminary objection was taken that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not valued his suit correctly. However, I find that the plaintiff is seeking the relief of mandatory Suit No. 506/06/97 22 of 23 injunction and the suit has been properly valued for that relief. Even the defendants during the course of arguments, have not advanced any arguments on this point.
RELIEF:
42. In view of the above findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendants are directed to release the retirement benefits, pension and other dues to the plaintiff from the date of acceptance of his resignation i.e. 01.02.1982. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court (PARVEEN SINGH) on 19.11.2013. Senior Civil Judge cum Rent (This judgment contains 23 pages Controller (Central), and each paper bears my signature.) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Suit No. 506/06/97 23 of 23