A V RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring Proceedings No.M/Prov/ M/MODP/MNL/1110/2000 and Order No.G1/ M/X1/1042/MODP/00, dated 9-8-2000 of the 2nd respondent and letter No.3023/PPO/2K, dated 12-8-2000 of the 6th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to continue to pay the pension to the petitioner every month as per Corrigendum PPO No.M/MODP/33028/99 issued by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) Petitioner joined Indian Army as a Commissioned Officer with effect from 12-6-1960 and rose in ranks to the post of Major General and sought premature retirement with effect from 31-5-1991 to enable him to join as Executive Director in Hindustan Cables Limited. He joined at Hindustan Cables Limited with effect from 1 -6-1991. According to him, he had commuted 100% of pension at the time of his appointment in Hindustan Cables Limited. Therefore, he did not draw any pension from 1-6-1991 till 31-12-1995 i.e. while in service of Hindustan Cables Limited and subsequently also. According to the petitioner, after the V Central Pay Commission recommendations were accepted, he became eligible for 'one rank one pension' scheme as contemplated by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India in letter No.1(1)/99/D(Pen/Services), dated 7-6-1999 and his pension was also modified vide Corrigendum PPO No.M/MODP/33028/99, granting 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1-1-1996 for the rank of Major General as per the accepted policy of 'one rank one pension'. The Pension Disbursing Authority i.e. Syndicate Bank, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, based on the modified letter issued by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.M/MODP/33028/99. paid pension along with arrears from 1-1-1996 to 30-6-2000. However, the new Chief of the 2nd respondent vide Corrigendum PPO No.M/Prov/M/MODP/MNL/1110/2000, dated 24.7.2000 cancelled the modified PPO No.M/MODP/33028/99 in toto without providing any right of hearing or without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, 2nd respondent directed the Pension Disbursing Authority of the petitioner i.e. Syndicate Bank, Sainikpuri Branch, Secunderabad (6th respondent), vide letter NO.G1/M/X1/1042/MODP/00, dated 9-8-2000 to recover the amount paid to him as pension till June, 2000. Petitioner was also directed by the 2nd respondent to deposit the amount in lumpsum and his pension was stopped with effect from July,2000. In view of the above, 6th respondent, vide letter No.3023/ PPO/2K, dated 12-8-2000 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,04,975/- being pension paid from 1-1-1996 to 30-6-2000 forthwith. He was also cautioned by the 6th respondent that failure to deposit back the amount, will result in legal action. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner as Major General retired prematurely on account of permanent absorption in Hindustan Cables Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking with effect from 31-5-1991. This was not a case of normal retirement. In this connection, Military Secretary's Branch, Army Headquarters, New Delhi vide letter No.30399/3415/MS(X), dated 30-10-1991 clearly stipulated that for the purpose of pro-rata pensionary benefits, the pensioner will be governed by the Ministry of Defence letter No.8(3)/86/A/D(Pen/Sers), dated 19-2-1987. The provisions of this letter will apply to those, who- (a) while on deputation to Central Public Enterprises exercise an option for permanent absorption and/or discharged/permitted to retire prematurely from Defence Services for this purpose. (b) are appointed in Central Public Enterprises on the basis of their own applications sent through proper channel in response to advertisements and are permitted to retire prematurely from service in the Defence Services for the purpose of taking up the appointment in the enterprises. In accordance with paragraph-6 of the said letter, every absorbed person will be required to exercise an option within six months of absorption for either of the alternatives indicated below:- (a) Receiving prorata monthly pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as admissible under the rules (b) Receiving death-cum-retirement gratuity and lump sum amount in lieu of monthly prorata pension worked out with reference to the commutation tables as obtaining on the date on which commuted value becomes payable. Petitioner exercised his option for (b) above on 3/18-5-1991 for receiving 100% lumpsum payment in lieu of monthly prorata pension i.e. a sum of Rs.4,56,344/- against the monthly prorata pension of Rs. 3,330/- and the pension was reduced to 'Nil' from the date of payment of commuted value of pension or three months after the date of issuance of PPO No.M/877/91. Thus, the petitioner was not in receipt of pension as on 1-1-1996 and as such, he was neither entitled for consolidation of pension as per Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No.1(2)/97/D(Pens/Sers), dated 24-11-1997 nor entitled for revision of pension as per the recommendations of V Central Pay Commission stipulated in Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi letter No.1(3)/98/D(Pens/Sers), dated 27-5-1998. In addition to lumpsum payment of Rs. 4,56,344/-, petitioner was also sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000- on account of death-cum-retirement gratuity. The petitioner misconceived the whole scheme. 'One rank one pension' scheme referred to by the petitioner is not in the knowledge of the respondents. The notion of the petitioner that Corrigendum PPO No.M/MODP/ 033028/99 was issued in his favour just to give the benefit of 'one rank one pension' on representation made by him, is incorrect. This was issued on the basis of a mis-statement made by the petitioner. Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No.1(1)/99/D(Pens/Sers), dated 7-6-1999 is not at all applicable to the case of the petitioner, as he was not in receipt of any kind of pension as on 1-1-1996, consequent on exercising his option to receive death-cum-retirement gratuity and a lump sum amount equal to 100% commutation of his prorata monthly pension. In fact, Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 7-6-1999 was issued to further modify the provisions of Ministry of Defence letters dated 24-11-1997 and also 27-5-1998 to the extent that revised pension shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1-1-1996. The letter dated 7-6-1999 is for giving overall protection and this has been wrongly construed by the petitioner as 'one rank one pension' and deliberately submitted a wrong application on 8-3-1999 as if he is a normally retired pensioner through his banker, which misled the respondents and, therefore, Corrigendum PPO No.M/MODP/33023/99 was issued. The allegation of the petitioner that the modified pension payment order was cancelled without providing any right of hearing and without issuing any show cause notice is not correct and the said Corrigendum PPO was obtained by playing fraud. Petitioner was well aware of the fact that he opted for 100% commutation of his prorata monthly pension. The pension of the petitioner would be restored after completion of 15 years from the date of commutation and the benefit of V Pay Commission recommendations will be afforded in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No.4/59/97-P&PW(D), dated 14-7-1998. Ordinarily, family pension admissible to the wife of the petitioner will be revised/ consolidated in terms of Ministry of Defence letter dated 27-5-1998 as and when contingency arises. Petitioner completed 15 years from the date of commutation, in the year 2006. Since the revision of pension under V Pay Commission with effect from 1-1-1996 is not applicable to the petitioner in accordance with para 26(a) of Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(3)/98/ (Penms/Sers), dated 27-5-1998 and para 7(a) of Ministry of Defence letter No. 1(2)/97/D(Pens/Sers), dated 24-11-1997, Proceedings in PPO No.M/MODP/MNL/1110/2000 is just and valid. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.