JHAMATMAL SHERSING BALCHADANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was one time an employee of Karachi Municipal Corporation and had thereafter retired from the services of the Corporation on an invalid pension of Rs. 51. 5 paise per month. After partition of the country he had migrated and settled down in Maharashtra. The petition of the petitioner to the respondent for payment of his pension having been neglected, he approached this Court and this Court had suo moto issued Writ Petition No. 845 of 1987. After hearing both the petitioner who appeared in person and the learned Counsel for Union of India and the State of Maharashtra P. S. Shah and H. Suresh, JJ. , by their order dated 6th October, 1987 held that the petitioner was entitled to pension payable at the rate drawn from Karachi Municipal Corporation for the period 5th November, 1949 to 5th December, 1958. The Union of India was directed to pay the pension for the said period within the stipulated time. Their Lordships in their judgement noticed that for the period subsequent to the aforesaid period, the petitioner was being paid pension.

(2.) THE petitioner thereafter filed a fresh petition describing it as a Contempt petition because of the refusal of the Union of India to pay him stepped up minimum pension at the rate of Rs. 375/- with effect from 1st January, 1986. The said increased pension was being paid to him with effect from 1st July, 1987. Notice of this petition was served upon the respondent who have appeared through their Counsel.

(3.) WE may shortly dispose of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent that in the instant case strictly the question of payment of stepped up pension with effect from 1st January, 1986 did not arise for the decision in the earlier Writ Petition No. 845 of 1987 and therefore the respondent cannot be held to be guilty of disobedience of the order passed in the earlier writ petition. We do not want to deny the petitioner relief if he is otherwise entitled to upon such a technical plea. The petition was filled in person. Secondly, the facts of this case amply justify invoking our writ jurisdiction treating the present petition to be a fresh one. Since the respondents have already appeared and filed their affidavit they will not be prejudiced by adopting the said course which is also in consonance with the principles of justice and fair play. We may note that the petitioner is aged nearly 88 years.