Pension entitlement is determined by the last drawn salary, and claims of pay anomalies raised without prior substantiation lack merit.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting the impugned order dated 01.11.2016 (Annexure P-5).

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant three increments to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1975, 18.01.1991 & 31.01.2001 as per the old and new ACP Scheme, since the petitioner has served against one post and one pay scale for more than requisite number of years i.e. 12 and 10 years.

(iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to carry re-fixation of pay of the petitioner in the same manner as has been carried by the respondent department qua the private respondent.

iv) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the pension to the petitioner equivalent to the private respondent in light of the principle of parity, since the petitioner is senior to the private respondent in all respect, but he has been granted lesser pension as compared to the private respondent.”

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that there exists an anomaly in his pension as compared to the pension which is being paid to his junior. Mr. Roop Lal Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith and submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Constable with the respondents on 24.11.1962 and his junior, namely, Shri Dulo Ram was appointed against the said post on 10.12.1966. He further submitted that the petitioner superannuated in the year 2001, whereas the private respondent superannuated in the year 2006. Learned Counsel further submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is that whereas the pension being drawn by his junior Dulo Ram is Rs.5412/-, the petitioner is being paid pension of Rs.3372/- per month only which is bad in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was denied three increments to bring him at par with Dulo Ram and it is on account of this that an anomaly exists. Accordingly, he prayed that present petition be allowed by directing the respondents to pay the petitioner the same pension as is being paid to his junior. No other point was urged.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Union of India submitted that till the time, the petitioner was in service, there was no pay anomaly in the pay being drawn by the petitioner as compared to his junior Sh. Dulo Ram. He submitted that the petitioner was always drawing higher salary as compared to his junior Dulo Ram. Learned Counsel further submitted that after superannuation of the petitioner, his pension was fixed as per last pay drawn by him. He further submitted that as Shri Dulo Ram retired in the year 2006, his pension was fixed as per last salary drawn by him and therefore, as it is not a case of pay anomaly resulting in anomaly in pension, the present petition deserves dismissal. Learned Counsel also submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he has been denied the ACP is also totally incorrect for the reason that firstly no such plea was ever raised by him till the time he was in service and now also, by way of this writ petition filed in the year 2017, the plea is being raised to justify the claim.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

5. The impugned order Annexure P-5 gives certain facts which are not in dispute. In terms of this order, the petitioner was appointed in SSB as a Constable on 24.11.1962 at basic pay of Rs. 95/- per mo