RAJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled in regular army on 18.8.1971. During his service, he suffered disability and was brought before the Invalidation Board. On the recommendation of the Medical Board, he was invalidated out of service on 29.2.1988 with 20% disability. The petitioner started receiving disability element of pension. However, with effect from 5.12.1995, the disability element of pension was withheld by the orders of PCDA (P), Allahabad. The petitioner was again called for Re-survey Medical Board and in the year 2000 his disability was again assessed at 20%. On the basis of this assessment, the disability element of pension was restored with effect from 28.10.2000 and he started getting pension of Rs.310/- p.m. However, while fixing this pension his disability was assessed at 20%. The petitioner is aggrieved against this order and his plea is that in view of the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, which was enforced with effect from 1.1.1996, any person suffering disability between 20% to 50%, the said disability would be treated as 50% for counting the pension.

(2.) There is no dispute about the aforesaid facts. The question which falls for determination is as to whether benefit of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission is to be given to even those employees who had retired prior to 1.1.1996. It is because of the reason that the Government has revised the formula for determining the disability element of pension by taking into consideration 50% disability in those cases where the disability is between 20% to 50% with effect from 1.1.1996 and in respect of those cases where the personnel retired after 1.1.1996 and it did not apply to the cases of those officials retiring before this date.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that OM dated 3.2.2000 giving benefit of enhancement of percentage of disability is given to those officials who were in service on or after 1.1.1996. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that this OM is discriminatory as it creates class within class by treating retired persons in two categories, namely, those who retired before 1.1.1996 and those who retired after 1.1.1996 and meeting out different treatments to them. Though no such specific plea is taken in the writ petition, we may point out that the aforesaid OM dated 3.2.2000 was challenged in this Court in the case entitled Ex. Ptr. Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. {WP (C) No. 5897/2006 and batch}. In our judgment dated 8.2.2008, we repelled the said challenge by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. K. Kapur v. Union of India and Ors., JT 2007 (3) SC 98 and holding that the said OM denying the benefit to those who retired prior to 1.1.1996 was not discriminatory.