Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1881 (HP)

Ram Lal v. Union of India

2011-03-31

KURIAN JOSEPH, V.K.AHUJA

body2011
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, C.J. These writ petitions are filed with the identical prayers, one set of such prayers is extracted below:- (A) To declare the act of reducing the benefit accruable to the petitioner after superannuation as envisaged under ITBP Medical Assistance Scheme for Pensioners Rule 1996 vide Annexure P-1, as an arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal act hence quash and set aside the decision Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 of the Governing Body. (B) To declare the act of respondent illegal because it against the principle of natural justice being passed against settled law of land that no decision which has civil consequences as far as persons concerned can be taken against the person at his back. (C) To declare the act of respondents of amending the 1996 Rules vide Annexure P-5 as illegal on the ground that respondents have no such power to carry out said amendment and in alternative in case this Hon’ble Court is pleased to hold that respondents have power to carry out such amendment then direct the respondents to apply said amendments prospectively to person who became member of scheme after said amendment and declare that this amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to person like petitioner by holding its retrospectively operation a bad in law. (D) To direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner Rs. 12,000/-per annum, for a period of 20 years as envisaged in 1996 Rules without any deviation from the Rules and to pay to the petitioner the arrears as are due to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum, from the date when it was payable to the petitioner.” 2. We find that the issue in principle has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in batch of cases in CWP No. 803 of 205 alog with connected cases, decided on 22.2.2011, the operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “19. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i) The amendment carried out by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 15.12.2004 is quashed and set aside. The decision of the respondents to close the scheme with effect from 1.11.2007 is also declared illegal. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i) The amendment carried out by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 15.12.2004 is quashed and set aside. The decision of the respondents to close the scheme with effect from 1.11.2007 is also declared illegal. ii) Respondents are directed to revive the original scheme, which came into force with effect from 1.8.1996 and the respondents are further directed to consider providing grant-in-aid towards the corpus till new scheme is framed to mitigate the hardship of the personnel already serving and retired from the I.T.B.P. iii) Respondents shall pay to the petitioners and similarly situate persons after the Central Government considers increasing the corpus by providing grant-in-aid to release ` 12,000/- per annum, as per the original scheme, which came into force with effect from 1.8.1996.” 3. These writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of judgment, as extracted above, so also the pending application(s), if any.