SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Asif Raza Khan - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 932 of 2020
Decided On : 29-11-2022




The court ordered the respondents to reconsider a pension claim, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and timely decisions on representations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Pension entitlement - Petition filed by son of deceased CISF personnel claiming pension benefits due to disability - Respondents contended petition was not maintainable as petitioner failed to prove disability upon submission of family papers - Court directed respondents to treat the petition as representation and decide within four weeks. (Paras 1, 4, 6)

(B) Procedural fairness - Rendering of a decision on a representation must be done within a reasonable time frame ensuring communication of results to the petitioner. (Para 6)

Table of Content
1. claim for pension redemption due to disability. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's directive on petition reconsideration and grievance recourse. (Para 3 , 6 , 7)
3. respondents' argument on maintainability and disclosure of disability. (Para 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, son of a HC/GD in CISF, who had served for a continuous period of 26 years till his death in service on 22.04.2007 after suffering a stroke. The petitioner claims to have attained 25 years of age on 15.09.2012 and his pension was stopped by the bank. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents for redemption of his pension as he claims to be suffering 55% disability and not capable of earning a livelihood.

2. Petitioner claims to have filed various representations to the competent authority, however, no action has been taken by the respondents. Hence, this petition.

3. Pleadings are complete.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that in Para-2 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been averred that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not disclosed that he was 55% disabled at the time of submission of family papers. Our attention has been drawn to Handicapped Certificate issued by the Office of the Civil Surgeon cum C.M.O. Kaimur, Bhabua (Annexure-6) filed along with the counter affidavit in support of above submission.

5. Pertinently, by way of present petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents for redemption of his pension on the pretext that he is 55% disabled, which according to respondents was not brought to their knowledge.

6. In view of the above, we hereby dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider the present petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and to take a final call on it in the light of Annexure-6 attached to their counter affidavit, within four weeks. The decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

7. Needless to say, if any grievance still persists, the petitioner is at library to have recourse to law before the appropriate Forum.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top