Manjeet Kaur Sidhu v. Union of India and Ors

IN

Smt. Manjeet K

Union of India

CORAM: H

Present: M

fo

M

** AMAN CHAU

1.

P respondents to pension and representations respectively)

15.01.2022 (A authority as ha to the same an Katakkar vs. therein and the

2.

R in KK Dhir v involving iden "1 pe pe

N THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGA CW Da Kaur Sidhu

Versus a and others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate or the petitioner. Mr. Indresh Goel, Sr. Panel Coun **** UDHARY, J. (Oral) Prayer made in the present o process the claim of the pe consequential family pensi s dated 22.07.2021 and 11.03 which was as a matter of fa Annexure P3) issued with an as been recorded in para 8 there nd also wrongly distinguishing th Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC e petitioner had retired on their o Reliance by the learned counsel i vs. Union of India and others ntical facts, relevant paras whereo

¶10Respondents firstly raised a etitioner is guilty of delay and l ension is barred by Limitation

UNJAB & HARYANA ARH WP-27486 of 2022 (O&M) ate of decision: 25.11.2024

...Petitioner

...Respondents AN CHAUDHARY nsel, Union of India. petition is for directing the etitioner for release of pro-rata on as raised vide detailed .2022 (Annexures P6 and P8, act accepted vide letter dated n approval by the appointing eof. However, without referring he judgment in Yashwant Hari C 113, even though the appellant own request. is made to yet another judgment s, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1450, of read thus:- a preliminary objection that the laches and his claim for prorata as he ought to have moved the

e a d , d g g i t t , e a e

le re th Si th pe ap ac be th G re w re in w st gr as in an B be go th w G be st sh G w G th G T cl an pe pr gr G to hi P th tim

egal machinery within one y epresentation dated 30.6.97. Fur he Limitation Act, reliance has ingh v. State of Punjab wherein, he court held that the plaintiff co ension for three years. On m pplicant had resigned from his ccord, and was not an absorbe een contended that though the p hrough proper channel on 24.2.19 Government was permitted to be

8.8.1965, his second resignati ejoining ONGC was a unilatera was obtained by the Petitioner egard Rule 26 of the CCS (Pen nto service to say that in this would entail forfeiture of ser tipulated in Rule 37 of the CC rants the right to seek prorata p s the absorbtion in ONGC wa nterest by the Government. He r nd contended that this decisio Binder Lal's case (supra). He also earing No. 4(6)/85P&PW(D) to ot eligible for prorata pension.

¶3The issue with regard to gra overnment servants who had joi han 10 years of government serv widening of the door from t Government itself or by Judicial enefit was sought to be restricted tipulating that the movement from hould be a transfer or deputatioi Government servant of his own v was added that the move shou Government to be in the Public I hier roots in FRs 26 & 37. So far Government are concerned, follo hiruvengadam (supra), it s lassification on the basis of a cut ny rationate would be arbitrary. etitioners case pertains to 196 rorata pension, if otherwise he rant of this benefit. So far as t Government Servant should hav o the PSU and thereafter got abso is movement of his own volitio SU should have been declared i he same have also been relaxed b me, as would appear from the G

year of rejection of his first rther, in terms of Article 102 of been placed on Anand Swarup , in a suit for arrears of pension, ould only recover the arrears of merits, it was argued that the service voluntarily of his own e in the ONGC. Further it has petitioner applied to join ONGC 965 and his resignation from the withdrawn in public interest on on from the Government and al act for which no permission from the respondents. In this nsion) Rules 1972 was pressed case Resignation from service rvice. Further, the conditions CS(Pension) Rules 1972 which pension, were also not fulfillled, as not declared to be in public relied upon V.R. Chadha (supra) on was not considered in Har o relied upon OM dated 3.1.1995 contend that the petitioner was ant of prorata pension to those ined a PSU after rendering more vice is a matter which has seen time to time, either by the pronouncements. Initially such d by fixing a cut off date and by m Government service to a PSU in as opposed to a move by the volition. An additional condition uld have been declared by the Interest. These requirements had r as the cut off dates fixed by the owing D.S. Nakara (supra) and stands concluded that such t off date which is fixed without . Therefore, merely because the 65/1966, he cannot be denied e fulfillls the requirements for the twin conditions that (i) the e been first transferred/deputed orbed in the PSU, as opposed to on and (ii) his movement to the in Public Interest, is concerned, by the Government from time to Government O.Ms of 1968, 1972, t f p , f e n s C e n d n s d e s h , c ) r s e e n e h y U e n e d e d h t e d r e d o e , o ,

af w P C P in Pu Pe w pe re St

3.

Fu by respondent under process Cell opinion a bound directio petitioner.

4.

L that the same taking into acc case, the petiti within a period

5.

D

6.

H limited for the an opinion on

25.11.2024 ashok

W

W

977 and 1991. Once these condi ot stand to reason that these relax fter a cut off date, which has n would be applicable to all such SUs even before such arbi Consequently, in our opinion, all 0 years or more of qualifying SUs, either on transfer/deputatio n respect of whom there was a de ublic Interest or not, would b ension, it has been held is not will and pleasure of the Gove ension is a valuable right vesting ot an ex gratia payment. It is a endered. (Reference may be m tate of Bihar and Subrata Sen v. urther reference is made to para No.5 wherein it has been stated for re-submission to MoD (BR and thus, learned counsel for t on may be given to the respond earned counsel for the Union of shall be considered and decide count the aforesaid judgments a ioner is found entitled, she wou d of 4 weeks thereafter. Disposed of accordingly. However, it is clarified that the e purpose of present proceedings the merits of the case.

itions have been relaxed, it does xations should be only from and no rational basis. The relocation Government servants who join itrarily fixed cut off dates. Government servants, who had service before they moved to on, or of their own volition, and eclaration of their move being in be entitled to prorata pension. a bounty payable on the sweet ernment. The right to receive g in a Government servant. It is a payment for the past services made to Deokinandan Prasad v. Union of India." a 6 of the written statement filed d that case of the petitioner was R) along with HQ DGBR Legal the petitioner prays that a time dents to decide the claim of the f India, on instructions, submits ed within a period of 3 months, and hearing the petitioner and in uld be released the due benefits, e observations made herein are s and would not be construed as (AMAN CHAUDHARY)

JUDGE s d n n . d o d n . t e s s . d s l e e s , n , e s