RASAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dispute at the bar that this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 14.8.2007 in W.A. Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of 2006, Union of India and Ors. v. Shri Man Bahadur Chhetri and Ors., 2008 1 GauLT 1. The sole question which falls for consideration now is whether the Petitioner is automatically entitled to similar relief granted in those writ appeals.

(2.) Before proceeding, it may be necessary to briefly refer to the facts of this case. In this case, the Petitioner was enrolled as Rifleman Operator in the signal category of the Assam Rifles on 8.4.1967, was promoted to the rank of Havildar and was further promoted to Naik Subedar on 1.2.1989. He was further promoted to the rank of Subedar in May, 1986 whereafter he was again promoted to the rank of Subedar Major in June, 1996. In the year 2001, the Respondent No. 2 issued the notice dated 16.4.2001, purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules read with Rule 48(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and also on the basis of the undertaking made by the Petitioner, following the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission Report, which enhanced the retirement age of JCOs of Assam Rifles including Subedar Major to 60 years, the impugned notice of his retirement at the age of 53 years, 3 months and 16 days is illegal. He, therefore, prays that he be paid salary and allowances admissible to him as per rule with effect from 1.6.2002 to 2009 when he would have attained the age of 60 years. This Court has held in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment dated 14.8.2007 as follows:

(3.) In the case at hand, the Petitioner was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 31.5.2002. The writ petition was, however, filed by him only on 1.2.2008 i.e. about six years later. He is obviously enlightened and encouraged by our decision in Man Bahadur Chhetri case (supra). Mr. B.N. Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, contends that as the Petitioner is similarly situated with the writ Petitioners in Man Bahadur Chhetri case and having approached this Court within six months of the pronouncement of the judgment thereof, there is no reason why the benefit of that judgment cannot be extended to this Petitioner. He strongly relies on the decision of the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Nand Kishore Naik v. State of Orissa, 1991 Supp2 SCC 698 to buttress his contention. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Shyam, the CGC, appearing for the Respondents, argues that as the Petitioner approached this Court six years after his compulsory retirement, he is not entitled to similar relief. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decisions of two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in A.P. Steel Re-rolling Mill Ltd v. State of Kerala, 2007 2 SCC 725 and U.P. Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr., 2006 11 SCC 464. For better appreciation of the controversy, I will first refer to the decision in Nand Kishore Naik case. Suffice it to reproduce paragraph 3 of the judgment: (SCC p. 699, para 3).