The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Rajendra Prasad W.P.(S). No. 6275 of 2011 ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Department of Health, Family Welfare, Medical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry & Allied Science (RINPAS) through its Director, Kanke, Ranchi. 5. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 6. Chief of Army Staffs, Army Head Quarter, New Delhi. 7. Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner ----------- : For the Respondents :
Legal Reasoning
earlier order dated 11.05.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1498 of 2007. 4 9. Since petitioner is entitled for pay-protection and revised pension in the pay-scale of Rs.10,500/-, the impugned order dated 29.06.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay benefits for which petitioner is entitled for, in accordance with law, within a period
Arguments
Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate Mr. Akshay Kr. Mahto, Advocate Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC(L&C) Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC 14/ 12.02.2024 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.06.2010, by which his claim for revised pension has been rejected on the ground that he retired as Honorary Lieutenant and Captain from the Indian Army which does not come under Group ‘A’ service rather the same is Group ‘B’ and as such, he is not entitled for pay-scale which he is claiming. 3. This case has chequered history. Earlier also petitioner had knocked the door of this Court by way of writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 1498 of 2007 claiming therein that on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1999, issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, Govt. of India, petitioner is entitled to get salary in pay-scale of Rs.10,500/-, which he was getting earlier working as Subedar in the Indian Army. Though earlier, after hearing the parties, this Court directed for taking an informed decision 2 considering the documents brought on record by the petitioner but by reasoned order dated 29.06.2010, the respondents have rejected the claim of petitioner and hence, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court once again. 4. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Akshay Kr. Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order argues that it is not in dispute that the respondents have acknowledged the Circular issued vide Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1999 by the Central Government. It has been further argued that respondents are not correct in assessing the Rank of Petitioner when it has already been settled that the Rank of petitioner was Lieutenant and has received pensionary benefits taking into account his pay-scale as Rs.10,500/- and to that effect PPO has also been issued. Now, it is not open for the respondent-RINPAS to change the same by way of reasoned order. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner has been granted pay-scale which was mentioned in the Advertisement but he is entitled for pay-protection and pensionary benefits also in view of PPO issued by the office of the Chief C.D.A. (Pensions), Allahabad. Learned counsel submits that what has been settled that cannot be unsettled by the respondent-RINPAS. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent-UoI does not disputes the documents brought on record by the petitioner which has been issued by the office of the Chief C.D.A. (Pensions), Allahabad and submits that since at the time of retirement all the grievances of petitioner has already been settled now after retirement when he joined the respondent-RINPAS, it is the respondent-RINPAS who has to settle the grievances of petitioner, if any, and not by the Union of India. 6. Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent-RINPAS very emphatically argues that in no way petitioner is entitled for revised pension. The salary has been paid to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of Advertisement and Appointment Letter. Learned counsel submits that since petitioner does not belong to the Group ‘A’ cadre he is 3 not entitled for revised pension and what has been mentioned in the Advertisement, the same has been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that after retirement, the grievances raised by the petitioner is not tenable. Learned counsel further argues that even if petitioner is entitled for revised pension, the same has to be looked into by Union of India from where the petitioner has retired and it is not the respondent-RINPAS were petitioner has been re-engaged after his retirement from Indian Army. Further, it has been argued that since respondent-RINPAS is an autonomous body, any Circular/ Memorandum issued by the Union of India is not binding on it. 7. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since earlier petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1498 of 2007 and the respondents have acknowledged that Circular vide Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1999 of the Central Government referred to by the petitioner, would no doubt apply to the case of petitioner, now at this stage it cannot be disputed by the respondents. Further in view of the PPO issued by the office of Chief C.D.A. (Pensions), Allahabad it is clear that petitioner has been given the revised pay-scale of Rs.10,500/-. 8. The issue to be decided at this stage is as to whether the rank of petitioner falls within Group-‘A’ or Group-‘B’ service. Since petitioner is claiming revised pay-scale by way of pay protection in view of PPO issued by the office of Chief C.D.A. (Pensions), Allahabad, which is not in dispute, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled for the same. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-RINPAS that since RINPAS is an autonomous body any notification and circulars issued by the Union of India is not applicable to respondent-RINPAS, is also not accepted to this Court. Any notification issued by the Union of India is binding on the respondents which has been duly accepted by them in the
Decision
of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)