DHARAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review petition filed by the applicant PWD (respondent No. 2 in the main petition) seeking review of order dated 8th December, 1999 passed in CWP No. 581 of 1997. BY the said order, CWP was allowed and applicant herein was directed to fix the pension and release pension order of the petitioner and pay arrears of pension w.e.f. 1st April, 1996 till date within a period of two months from the date of the order with direction that he should also start getting future pension regularly. On arrears of pension, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum was also allowed. It was noted in the order that since the petitioner had served for 22 years and 8 months with respondent No. 2 this period should be taken into consideration while fixing the pension.

(2.) It is a matter of record that petitioner before joining applicant/PWD, was serving in Army as Combatant Soldier. He had joined army in the aforesaid capacity on.29th January, 1956 and was invalidated from Army on 2nd November, 1971 as he suffered injury and was granted war injury pension. He is receiving that war injury pension on the basis of his service of 17 years in the Army. Thereafter, he joined PWD as UDC on 16th July, 1973 and worked till 31st March, 1996 i.e., for a period of 22 years and 8 months. There is no dispute that petitioner is entitled to get the pension from PWD. However, in this review petition, review is sought of the order dated 8th December, 1999 on the ground that petitioner can be given pension for a total service of 33 years in all and since he is getting pension from the Army on the basis of his service of 17 years, in PWD his service for the purpose of pension should be limited to 16 (33 years 17 years) and not 22 years and 8 months. In support of the stand taken by the applicant, applicant has filed office noting wherein, referring to the provisions of Rule 19(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 matter was referred to Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare for clarification and the said department has given the clarification on the lines adopted by the applicant in this review petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is entitled to two pensions, one he is getting from the Army and the other he is entitled to get from PWD and the service rendered in Army is not to count for the pension which he has to receive from PWD while calculating his pension in PWD. His submission is that Rule 19(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not lay down any such proposition as advaed by the applicant in review petition. He further submitted that Rule 19(1) entitles ex-serviceman to continue to draw the military pension at his option, and therefore, the 2nd pension which he would receive on the basis of service rendered in civil employment is totally independent of the military pension being received by him.