S P DUTT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Rule D.B. Mr. K. B. S. Rajan counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the petitioner has been denied the fixation of pay while taking into consideration the spirit of the integrated broad band pay scale introduced for the first time in the armed forces w. e. f. 1.1.86. The first argument was that denial of increment of four years' service when he was stagnating at the maximum of Rs. 1900/- in the pre revised scale was not correct and same was not in the spirit of integrated broad band pay scale as introduced and recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission. The second contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that provision of leave encashment was made available w. e. f. 1.1.86 to all the civilians as well as para military personnel and denial of the same uniformly to the officers of the armed forces was arbitrary and illegal. He contended grant of leave encashment from 30.12.98 to the officers of the armed forces and fixing a cut off date from 30.12.1991 prospectively was discriminatory as well as arbitrary. Lastly, it was contended before us that the petitioner was re-employed and after re-employment, the petitioner ought to have been given a discount of Rs.500/- from pension while calculating his emoluments but the same was wrongly denied to him. In support of his contention counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of A. N. Basheshar Dass Vs. Tek Chand 1972, SCC 893 for the proposition that there is a duty imposed on the Court in interpreting a particular provision of law, rule or notification to ascertain the meaning and intendment of the legislature or of the delegate, which in exercise of the powers conferred on it has made the rule or notification in question. On the aforesaid premise the petitioner has prayed that the pay of the petitioner be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.2300-5100 taking into account the previous service rendered as Commodore (time scale) and ensure by giving one increment per year of stagnation in the scale of Rs.1900/- from 1982 to 1986. Similarly, the next prayer is to fix the pension loss over which pay drawn at the revised rates of pay the difference in pension with interest. Another prayer in the writ petition is to give necessary discount of Rs.500/- in the pension drawn by the petitioner and further direct the respondents to pay the petitioner arrears accrued on this amount together with interest and lastly that the petitioner is entitled to concession of leave encashment to the total number of leave at his credit subject to a maximum of 240 days. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has contended that the question of leave encashment as well as argument of non-grant of leave encashment to a maximum of 240 days as well as fixing of a cut off date came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rear Admiral (Retd.) H.C. Malhotra Vs. Union of India & Ors. CW. 488/993, decided on 19.4.94. In similar circumstances and on the basis of similar arguments, the Division Bench of this Court held:

(2.) It was held in the aforesaid case that defence personnel are a class by themselves and they cannot be equated with civil servants on all points. While adverting to the argument with regard to the unreasonableness or arbitrariness in appointing the cut off date , the Division Bench relied upon the decision of State of West Bengal Etc. Vs. Ratan Behari Dey & Ors. JTT 1993(4) SC 501. The same is as under:

(3.) The Division Bench also relied upon the decision in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Ramjee Prasad & Ors. AIR 1990, SC 1300 which is the following effect: