KUNDAN SINGH Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired from service on April 30, 1975, has filed this petition with a prayer that the injury pension, as granted to him, be enhanced from Rs. 15/- per month to Rs. 19/- per month till December 31, 1985, and from Rs. 248/- per month to Rs. 375/- per month with effect from January 1, 1986. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk in the Punjab Civil Secretariat. On partition of the country, he shifted to India. During the riots, he suffered an injury on the left hand which resulted in a permanent disability. The Government, by a special order, decided to give him 'injury pension' at the rate of one-fifth of the salary. The petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 95/- per mensems. However, the injury pension was fixed at Rs. 15/-. The petitioner claims that it should have been actually Rs. 19/- per month. He cites the case of Jagjit Singh who was similarly placed, and claims that the State had arbitrarily denied him the pension at the rate of Rs. 19/- per mensem. The petitioner got different promotions and ultimately retired as a Superintendent on April 20, 1975. After his retirement, his injury pension was enhanced to Rs. 248/- per mensems with effect from January 1, 1986. The petitioner claims that in view of the order dated January 31, 1990, he should have been granted a pension of Rs. 375/- per mensem instead of Rs. 248/- per mensem. Thus, the total claim of the petitioner is enhancement of injury pension from Rs. 15/- per mensem to Rs. 19/- per mensem from 1947 to December 31, 1985, and from Rs. 248/- per mensem to Rs. 375/- per mensem with effect from January 1, 1986. The petitioner claims that his repeated efforts - representations to different authorities having borne no fruit, he had approached this Court as a last resort. He consequently prays for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to revise his injury pension with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The respondents have controverted the petitioner's claim. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner is getting a regular monthly pension of Rs. 2404/- with effect from October, 1994. However, with regard to the petitioner's claim to injury pension, it has been averred that the matter being old, the record is not available. It has been admitted that the petitioner had made representations from time to time. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it has been pointed out that Jagjit Singh had been initially allowed injury pension at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month. However, subsequently, it has reduced to Rs. 248/- per month.