MANOTOSH ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, inter alia, prays for a writ in the nature mandamus commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to rescind, recall and/ or withdraw the Central Government order passed by the Additional Secretary as per notification No. 2/1/87-PIC-1 dated. April 16, 1987 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensioners, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi, as ultra vires the Constitution of India ; the petitioner also prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to settle and pay the pension to the petitioner @ Rs. 3800/- per month from January 1, 1986 (being 50% of Rs. 7600/-) by notionally raising his basic pay from Rs. 2750/- to Rs. 7600/- per month as from the date in the new super time scale of Rs. 7300-100-7600 at par with the serving officers of his rank in the Indian Administrative Service less already drawn and to pay all arrears thereof.

(2.) The petitioner also prays for a number of declarations, for example, declaration that the order dated April 16, 1987 which is annexure 'E' to the petition is illegal, arbitrary, unfair and unconstitutional and as such is liable to be struck down and quashed, declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the privilege of pecuniary benefits attended with the merger of dearness allowances and dearness pay and other allowances and financial reliefs to the basic pay as have been made available to post 1986 pensioners, declaration that the petitioner is entitled to all privileges and financial benefits available under the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rule 1987 and the corresponding amendments to All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1958 for refixation of pension and other retiring benefits such as revised gratuity, commuted value of revised pension, dearness relief and leave encashment, declaration that the classification of the existing pensioners of the two categories, being pre 1986 pensioners and post 1986 pensioners and other sub-categories for giving additional pecuniary reliefs against inflationary price rise is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires, declaration that the existing pre-1986 pensioners including the petitioners are entitled to equal financial benefits and privileges as have been made available to the post 1986 pensioners and so on and so forth.

(3.) First of all it must be noted that the petitioner belongs to the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service and challenges the provisions of some Central Law. First of all whether an employee of the State of West Bengal can challenge the law made for the purpose of the employees of the Union of India is to be seen. Secondly, whether being a member of the State cadre, the petitioner can challenge a law or laws applicable to the Central Government employees. Thirdly, it is to be seen whether the jurisdiction of this court to enter into the question of the legality and validity of the Central laws is totally outstead under the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.