PAHLAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, I request Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate, present in the Court to assist the Court. I must place on record that the learned counsel has assisted the Court to my satisfaction.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited in the Army under No. 6851709 on 17.8.1948 as Sepoy in the Army Ordinance Corps. On 23.5.1956 he was brought on Reserve. In the same year he was enrolled in the CRPF w.e.f. 24.12.1956 as a Constable. After serving for about 30 years the petitioner was retired from the CRPF in the year 1986. During this period he was also promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector. Pension for serving the CRPF was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in Feb., 1986. He was also granted pension for rendering service in Army w.e.f 16.8.1965. The petitioner is claiming pension from the Army w.e.f 16.8.1963. While the petitioner was getting aforesaid pensions, he applied to the Army vide letter dated 22.7.1987 asking for joint pension of the Army and the CRPF on the basis of the combined service rendered in the Army and the CRPF. The petitioner was asked to return the pension received by him from the Army w.e.f 17.8.1965 vide letter dated July, 1987 (Annexure P-6). The basic pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 377/- w.e.f. 17.2.1986. The petitioner disputed the quantum of pension sanctioned by the CRPF authorities. It is also stated that the petitioner was asked to give his option w.e.f. 12.11.1982 for counting the Army service. It is stated that the petitioner did not ante date the letter as desired. However, he signed his option letter dated 16.5.1989.

(3.) Vide the aforesaid communication the petitioner asked for combined pension for rendering service in Army and CRPF. Petitioner also made representations for the aforesaid purpose. Vide letter dated 9.4.1999, addressed to the wife of the petitioner the CRPF authorities communicated to her that the husband of the petitioner was allowed pension by taking into consideration the Army service and as such he is no eligible to another pension from the CRPF. It is this order, which is impugned in the present petition.