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

2018 Supreme(Gau) 389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
Nir Bahadur Chetri - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 1036 of 2013
Decided On : 23-04-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.R. Adhikari, Mr. AR Tahbildar, Ms. SJ Deka
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Barua, Ms. S. Terangpi

The duty of the State to ensure that citizens receive their legitimate entitlements, especially in the context of pensionary benefits for individuals who have served the nation.

Headnote:

Pensionary Benefits - Assam Rifles - The petitioner, a former Rifleman in Assam Rifles, filed a petition seeking pensionary benefits under Rule 49 (2) (b) of the Central CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The court held that the petitioner served for 10 years and 4 months as Rifleman and was entitled to pensionary benefits as per the rules. The court emphasized the duty of the State to ensure that citizens receive their legitimate entitlements and directed the respondents to pay all pensionary benefits and arrears within 6 months, with arrears dating back 3 years prior to the filing of the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a former Rifleman in Assam Rifles, sought pensionary benefits under Rule 49 (2) (b) of the Central CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, claiming to have served for 10 years and 4 months before being discharged on medical grounds.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner indeed served for the claimed period and was entitled to pensionary benefits as per the rules. It emphasized the duty of the State to ensure that citizens receive their legitimate entitlements and directed the respondents to pay all pensionary benefits and arrears within 6 months, with arrears dating back 3 years prior to the filing of the petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 49 (2) (b) of the Central CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, despite being discharged on medical grounds before completing 10 years of service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's service for 10 years and 4 months as a Rifleman entitled him to pensionary benefits as per the provisions of Rule 49 (2) (b) of the Central CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It emphasized the duty of the State to ensure that citizens receive their legitimate entitlements.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to pay all pensionary benefits to the petitioner along with the arrears within 6 months, with arrears dating back 3 years prior to the filing of the petition.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. AR Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Terangpi, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of an appropriate Writ or direction or any other appropriate orders directing the respondents to pay his pensionary benefits as per Rule 49 (2) (b) of the Central CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

3. The case of the petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel is that he joined Assam Rifles as Rifleman on 30.12.1959 and served as such till he was discharged on medical ground on 07.05.1970. However, he has not been given pensionary benefits as per his entitlement under Rule 49 (2) (b) of the Central CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

4. In support of his claim, the petitioner has submitted a copy of the letter dated 16th December, 1999 of the Commandant, 21C, 16th Assam Rifles, C/O 99 APO bearing No. Fin/8034/NE/99/1943 addressed to the Director General, Assam Rifles (NE Branch), Shillong wherein the Regiment No. of the petitioner was given as -160545 and his date of enrolment was mentioned as - 30.12.1959 and date of discharge from service on invalid pension as - 07.05.1970 vide Unit DO II No. 17/02/70 dated 26th April, 1970.

5. Petitioner also submitted an extract copy of the record maintained by 16th Assam Rifles, Part-II Order Sl. No.17 dated 26th April, 1970 and Last Part-II, Sl. No. 16 dated 10th April, 1970, wherein it is recorded as follows :

"Invalided out from service by Unit RMO on 9.4.70 kept on light duty w.e.f. 9.4.70 to 6.5.70 and will be discharged from service on invalid pension w.e.f. 7.5.70 & SOS/SORS w.e.f. same date."

6. Further, petitioner also submitted a copy of the letter No. 160545/NBC/Pen/2011/221 dated 28.09.2011 forwarding the letter No. 160545/RK/Fin/Pen/2011/206 dated 22.09.2011 of the Commandant, 16th Assam Rifles i.e. the Battalion to which the petitioner belongs to before he was discharged, addressed to the Directorate General, Assam Rifles (NE Branch), Shillong, requesting for taking up necessary action for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

7. The respondent authorities filed an affidavit-in-opposition and opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 10 years service before he was discharged on medical ground and therefore, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits under the Rules.

8. The fact that the petitioner was appointed or recorded as Rifleman on 30.12.1959 is supported by the documents submitted by him, whereas there is no document to support the claim of the respondents that the petitioner was appointed for one year in Boy Coy and thereafter only he was appointed as full-fledged Rifleman. The letter of the Commandant of the Battalion, where the petitioner served for 10 years and 4 months, has testified that the petitioner indeed served for the period as claimed by him in Assam Rifles. There cannot be a better testimony than the one given by the Commandant of the Battalion himself. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner indeed served 10 years and 4 months as Rifleman in Assam Rifles before he was discharged from service on medical ground. As such, the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits as per the provisions of Rule 49 (2) (b) of the Central CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

9. A man having served the nation for such a long period of time should not have been deprived of his pensionary benefits for so long. Many times than not the contribution of such persons are either ignored or neglected. We live in a welfare state where the State owes a duty to see that no citizen is neglected or ignored in regard to his legitimate entitlements. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner at the earliest.

10. In view of above, the respondents are directed to pay all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner along with the arrears




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