BENU CHATTERJI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined Border Security Force as Combadised S1 (Stenographer, Grade-I). He was promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant and took charge in 32 Bn. BSF on 12.7.1997. He retired as Assistant Commandant IRLA No.70009 from 32 Bn. BSF on completion of superannuation age, 55 years, rendering service for 31 years, 2 months, 21 days. Accordingly, his pay was calculated on this basis, meaning thereby, he was not paid full pension. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

(2.) Consequently, the petitioner represented for giving him full pension taking his service for 33 years. In support of the claim, the petitioner relied on Apex Court decision in Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary and others v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 2125) and Division Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court in Shri Sant Ram v. Union of India and others (Annexure-E). In Raghu Nandan Lal Chaudhary and others v. Union of India (supra), the Apex Court held that:

(3.) The respondents, in reply to the petitioner's representation, informed the petitioner vide communication dated November 1, 2002, that benefit of full pension has been confined to petitioners who obtained judgment from High Court in their favour. This approach flies in the face of principle that judgment of the Court should be applied to similar cases without dragging the petitioners to seek independent remedy. Further, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Therefore, the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court and Delhi high Court, with which we are in entire agreement and conditions coming into existence on change of superannuation age would not affect the claim of the petitioner.