A.A. APHRAIM Vs. RAJIV RANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging noncompliance of the directions in Annexure A4 judgment in OP(CAT) No.211 of 2016. It is contended that the petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army during the emergency of Chinese aggression. After the emergency, the petitioner and other emergency commissioned officers were granted NCC permanent commission which was a one-time measure limited to existing officers as on 23/5/1980 and they were paid from defence estimate under the Army head. It is further contended that these officers were treated at par with their counterparts in the Army with regard to their pay/allowance and perks all throughout their service and even after their retirement with regard to their pension. However, by Circular No.144 dtd. 27/1/2010, (Annexure 3 in the O.A.) the pension disbursing authorities were directed to review the case of the NCC Whole Time Officer like the petitioner, stating that they are not entitled to get the benefit of the letter dtd. 21/5/2009 issued by the Government of India and that payment of pension to them under pay band IV has resulted in over payment of pension. It is aggrieved by the same, O.A.No. 418 of 2014 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam challenging Circular No.144 dtd. 27/1/2010. The Tribunal by Ext.P6 order declined to interfere with the impugned circular but relying on the judgment in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)[ AIR (2015) SC 696] directed the respondents not to effect any recovery of excess payment from the applicants. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed OP(CAT)No.211 of 2016 before this Court, challenging Ext.P6 order.

(2.) It is contended that while the said OP(CAT) was pending consideration, the Government of India issued Annexure A1 (Ext.P13 in OP(CAT)No.211 of 2016) and decided to give pension to the NCC Wholetime Officers who have retired from service prior to 2006 treating them at par with counterpart in the Armed Forces for fixing their pension in pay band IV with effect from 1/1/2006 and also decided to refund the amount already recovered. In light of Annexure 1, the respondents issued Annexure A2 Circular (Ext.P14 in OP(CAT)No.211 of 2016). Thereafter, by Annexure A3 (Ext.P15 in OP(CAT)No.211 of 2016) the Director General NCC was informed by the respondent that in the light of Annexure A1 and A2 necessary instructions have been issued to all pension disbursing agencies to revise the minimum guaranteed pension. It is further contended that in another case O.A.No.1053 of 2016, the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed the impugned Circular No.144 dtd. 27/10/2010 also.

(3.) Taking note of the above marked Annexures and order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1053 of 2016, this Court passed Annexure A4 judgment directing respondents 1 to 5 in the OP (CAT) No.211 of 2016 to see that all consequential steps by way of necessary reliefs should be granted to the petitioners if the same has not been granted, without any delay, at any rate within a period of 2 months.