SHAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who served in Paramilitary Force, is seeking indulgence of this Court to award him pension, after fixing his pay properly. He retired as Inspector from Central Reserve Police Force (for short "CRPF" hereinafter). As mentioned in the writ petition filed way back in the year 2014, he claimed himself to be 76 years old. Meaning thereby that presently, he must be about 80 years of age. We need to be considerate to our forces including the paramilitary force and security personnel, who always remain ready to serve the nation and many times sacrifice their lives for the purpose.

(2.) Aggrieved against the order dtd. 1/3/2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. The petitioner/appellant herein had approached this Court by filing the writ petition, seeking rectification in the pension being paid to him after revision thereof as per the 6 th Pay Commission. The facts as noticed in the order passed by the learned Single Judge narrate that the appellant was appointed as Constable with CRPF on 21/7/1960. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Naik/Radio Operator w.e.f. 29/1/1964 and to the post of Head Constable/Radio Operator w.e.f. 16/5/1972. He was further promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector/Radio Operator w.e.f. 31/8/1984 and Inspector/Radio Operator w.e.f. 6/6/1994. As Inspector/Radio Operator, he was drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.1640.0060-2600-EB-75-2900. After attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant retired from service on 31/8/1996. His pension was fixed at Rs.946.00 w.e.f. 1/9/1996. His pension was revised to Rs.2830.00, however, subsequently with retrospective effect from 1/9/1996, his pension was revised to Rs.2928.00 vide order dtd. 18/4/2000. Subsequent revision of pension of the appellant was Rs.6750.00 w.e.f. 1/1/2006, on implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission Report.

(3.) The appellant had been raising grievance regarding correct fixation of his pension w.e.f. 1/9/1996 after the anomaly in the pay scale of the post on which he was working, was removed. His claim was rejected vide Communication dtd. 23/12/2011, which was challenged by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge finding no merit in the writ petition dismissed the same. The order has been impugned by filing the present intra-court appeal.