Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 792
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.V.RAMULU
MAJ.GEN.(RETD.) A.V.RAO - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 08/10/2007
W. P. 16273 Of 2000
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16 and 19 (1) (g) – Employment and Service matter – Retirement – Pension of pay scale – Petitioner joined Indian Army as a commissioned Officer with effect from 12-6-1960 and rose in ranks to post of major General and sought premature retirement with effect from 31-5-1991 to enable him to join as Executive Director in Hindustan Cables Limited – He joined at Hindustan Cables Limited with effect from 1 -6-1991 – According to him he had commuted 100% of pension at the time of his appointment in Hindustan Cables Limited – He did not draw any pension from 1-6-1991 till 31-12-1995 i. e. while in service of Hindustan Cables Limited and subsequently also – He was also cautioned by the 6th respondent that failure to deposit back the amount, will result in legal action – Hence this Writ Petition – Held, Court opinion that respondents could not have cancelled benefits of liberalized Pension Rules i. e. an amount of rs. 6,220/- per month, which was paid to the petitioner on revision of the pension. Seeking to recover the arrears on the ground that they were paid from 1-1-1996 and the denial of benefits of revised pension i. e. 50% of the minimum revised scales of pay introduced with effect from 1-1-1996 is arbitrary, discriminative and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – Further, as noticed above, petitioner cannot be equated to that of a person deputed and absorbed into a public sector undertaking – Whether he sought employment thereafter with any public sector undertaking or not is irrelevant for the purpose of extending benefits of revised Pension Rules – It is further to be noted that no opportunity of hearing was given or any show cause notice has been issued asking the petitioner to explain as to why revised benefits shall not be withdrawn, having been paid for more than 5 years, before passing impugned Orders – This is in gross violation of principles of natural justice – Respondents directed to restore the difference of pension payable to the petitioner in view of introduction of the Revised Pension Rules with effect from 1-1-1996 and pay arrears accrued therefor, within a period of eight (8)weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order – Writ Petition is allowed.
( 2 ) PETITIONER joined Indian Army as a commissioned Officer with effect from 12-6-1960 and rose in ranks to the post of major General and sought premature retirement with effect from 31-5-1991 to enable him to join as Executive Director in hindustan Cables Limited. He joined at hindustan Cables Limited with effect from 1 -6-1991. According to him, he had commuted 100% of pension at the time of his appointment in Hindustan Cables Limited. Therefore, he did not draw any pension from 1-6-1991 till 31-12-1995 i. e. while in service of Hindustan Cables Limited and subsequently also. According to the petitioner, after the V Central Pay Commission recommendations were accepted, he became eligible for one rank one pension scheme as contemplated by the Ministry of Defence, government of India in letter No. 1 (1)/99/d (Pen/services), dated 7-6-1999 and his pension was also modified vide Corrigendum ppo No. M/modp/33028/99, granting 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1-1-1996 for the rank of Major General as per the accepted policy of one rank one pension. The Pension disbursing Authority i. e. Syndicate Bank, sainikpuri, Secunderabad, based on the modified letter issued by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No. M/modp/33028/99. paid pension along with arrears from 1-1-1996 to 30-6-2000. However, the new Chief of the 2nd respondent vide Corrigendum PPO no. M/prov/m/modp/mnl/1110/2000, dated 24. 7. 2000 cancelled the modified PPO no. M/modp/33028/99 in toto without providing any right of hearing or without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, 2nd respondent directed the pension Disbursing Authority of the petitioner i. e. Syndicate Bank, Sainikpuri Branch, secunderabad (6th respondent), vide letter no. G1/m/x1/1042/modp/00, dated 9-8-2000 to recover the amount paid to him as pension till June, 2000. Petitioner was also directed by the 2nd respondent to deposit the amount in lumpsum and his pension was stopped with effect from July,2000. In view of the above, 6th respondent, vide letter No. 3023/ ppo/2k, dated 12-8-2000 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,04,975/-being pension paid from 1-1-1996 to 30-6-2000 forthwith. He was also cautioned by the 6th respondent that failure to deposit back the amount, will result in legal action. Hence, this Writ Petition.
( 3 ) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner as Major General retired prematurely on account of permanent absorption in Hindustan Cables Limited, a public Sector Undertaking with effect from 31-5-1991. This was not a case of normal retirement. In this connection, Military secretarys Branch, Army Headquarters, New delhi vide letter No. 30399/3415/ms (X), dated 30-10-1991 clearly stipulated that for the purpose of pro-rata pensionary benefits, the pensioner will be governed by the Ministry of defence letter No. 8 (3)/86/a/d (Pen/sers), dated 19-2-1987. The provisions of this letter will apply to those, who- (a) while on deputation to Central Public enterprises exercise an option for permanent absorption and/or discharged/permitted to retire prematurely from Defence Services for this purpose. (b) are appointed in Central Public enterprises on the basis of their own applications sent through proper channel in response to advertisements a
