Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

3
CommentGo Back

Download

Civil Writ Petition No. 6223 of 2007 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARHDate of Decision: May 26, 2008Gurmail Singh Dahdli and others ............ PetitionersversusUnion of India and others ............. RespondentsCORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?-.-Present:Shri Bhim Sen Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Central Govt. Standing Counselfor the respondents.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The petitioners are former Personnel Below Officers Rank (hereinafter to be referred as “PBOR”) of the Indian Air Force. All the petitioners are pre 01.01.1996 retirees. The grievance of the petitioners isthat 5

Central Pay Commission was constituted to examine the pay and pension structure of the civil servants, including armed forces. Therecommendations made by the said Pay Commission were accepted by theGovernment of India and a circular was issued on 07.06.1999 relating to pensionary benefits in respect of commissioned officers and PBOR. Such pensionary benefits were revised w.e.f. 01.01.1996. There was an anomalyin respect of pensionary benefits payable to PBOR which led to widespread

Civil Writ Petition No. 6223 of 2007 [2]

resentment and ultimately a committee of Group of Ministers wasconstituted by the Government of India in January, 2005 to look into theissue. The Group of Ministers agreed that there is justification for improving the pensionary benefits of the PBOR, particularly the threelowest ranks i.e., Sepoy, Naik and Havildar, who had been completelyneglected. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Group of Ministers,Government of India, Ministry of Defence, issued a circular on 01.02.2006regarding the improvement in person of PBOR but w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The petitioners claim that pensionary benefit circulated vide circular dated01.02.2006 is illegal to the extent of restricting the benefit from 01.01.2006as the same to that extent is arbitrary, discriminatory, without any rational basis and, thus, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of pay fixation interms of circular dated 01.02.2006 from the date all other ranks have gottheir pension revised i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.1996.Learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out thatReckonable emoluments for the purposes of pensionary benefits in respectof PBOR is not the actual pay drawn but the maximum pay of the pay scale,including 50% of the highest classification allowance, if any, of the rank held and group in which paid continuously for at least 10 months at the timeof discharge. That was the decision taken in respect of PBOR whileaccepting the recommendations of 3

and 4

Pay Commission and whileaccepting the pay recommendation of 5

Pay Commission which is evidentfrom circular dated 03.02.1998. The relevant extract from circular dated03.02.1998 communicating acceptance of recommendations of 5

CentralPay Commission by the Government of India to the Chief of Army Staff, theChief of Naval Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff, reads as under:-

Civil Writ Petition No. 6223 of 2007 [3]

“ 3.

Reckonable emoluments:-

3.1The term 'Reckonable Emoluments' will mean

Emoluments Reckonable for

CategoryRetiring / Service/ Invalid pension Family pensionAll types of gratuities

Officers Pay including rank pay,stagnation increment andNPA, if any last drawn.Pay including Rank Pay,Stagnation increment andNPA, if any, last drawnPay including Rank Pay, stagnationincrement andNPA, if any, plusDearnessAllowanceadmissible on thedate of retirement /Invalidment / death.Personnel BelowOfficerRank Maximum pay of the payscale, including 50% of the highest classificationallowance, if any, of therank held and group inwhich paid.Pay including classificationallowance, stagnationincrement, if any, last drawnby the individual.Pay includingclassificationallowance plusstagnationincrement, if any,plus DearnessAllowanceadmissible on thedate of retirement /Invalidment/ death.

Pay, Non-Practising Allowance, Classification Allowance,Rank Pay and Stagnation increment.3.2 xx xx xx xxI.The term reckonable emoluments shall mean:-(a)

Officers

:- xx xx xx xx xx(b)

PBORsincluding Ncs(E):-

Maximum of scale of payof the rank and group in the pre-revised scales plus 50%of the highest classification pay appropriate to the paygroup plus actual Dearness Allowance upto AICII 1436and Interim Relief I & II. For calculation of gratuity andfamily pension, basic pay, Classification Pay actuallydrawn will be included in computing reckonableemoluments”.However, while issuing circular on 7

June, 1999 in respect of implementation of Government's decision on the recommendations of 5

Pay Commission allowing pensionary benefits in respect of commissioned

of 00

gnagesrao

reply04 / 07 / 2010

M Nageswara Rao

Dear Friends, I had a message for all ORs/NCOs/JCOs san (PBORs) for discussion and take decision. subject matter is "whether it is acceptable to us to call us as 'PBORs'? I will send my reasons/grounds in the next box after receiving response from you all, ok! m n rao

reply01 / 20 / 2010

M Nageswara Rao

Dear Friends, The CWP was allowed by the hon'ble H.C.of P & H, quashing the cut off date 01-02-2006 and directed the respondents viz., UOI, to grant revised pensionary benefits to all the petitioners and similarly situated PBORs within a period of 6 months from the date of judgment i.e.26-05-2008. now what is the present position? I come to know that the UOI has filed RP before SC? was it true, i

reply01 / 20 / 2010