Kailash Chand Pandey vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Kailash Chand Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Table of Content
1. petition challenges governmental notifications and orders. (Para 1)
2. arguments based on pension age and discrimination. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court clarifies eligibility based on age and previous judgments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. legal principle of limited benefits established. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notification dated 19th August, 2019, Memorandum dated 05th February, 2021 and order dated 26th December, 2019 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Petitioner also seeks directions to the respondents to calculate the pension of the petitioners by adding three years of service from the date of their retirement and thereby revise the pension, gratuity and other pensionary benefits to the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the petitioners superannuated after attaining the age of 57 years as per Rule 43 of CRPF Rules. He states that this Court struck down Rule 43 of CRPF Rules as unconstitutional and illegal vide judgment dated 31st January, 2019 in the case of Dev Sharma Vs. Indo Tibetan Border Police & Anr., WP(C) 1951/2012 and directed the Union of India to fix the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document