Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 97 (JK)

Bhoj Sing v. Union of India

2014-03-07

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2014
1. Petitioner was enrolled as REN on 14th October, 1969 in 11 JAK RIF of Indian Army. Petitioner was medically discharged from the Army on 7lh March, 1957. The pensionary benefits were extended to the petitioner in accordance with rules. 2. FIR NO. 07/1996 dated 12th January, 1996 U/s 20 NDPS Act was registered against the petitioner alongwith other four persons at police station Akhnoor. The Trial Court on 24th April, 2012 convicted and sentenced all the accused including the petitioner for having committed offence punishable U/s 20 NDPS Act. Then accused alongwith the petitioner were ordered to undergo imprisonment of 10 years and fine to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac imposed upon them. 3. The order of conviction and sentence has been called in question by the appellant and other accused in Cr. Appeal No. 44/2012 which is pending before the Court. The Court on 19th February, 2013 has ordered for suspension of sentence and directed for enlarging the appellant-petitioner and other accused on bail. 4. After the conviction of the appellant-petitioner, the DPDO (AR), Jammu informed the Officer I/C Legal Cell 16 Corps C/O 526 ASC Bn. C/O 56 APO, vide communication dated 08th October, 2013 that the pension of the petitioner has been suspended by the said office with effect from 01st November, 2012 after the conviction of the petitioner by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, and as he has been awarded 10 years punishment. 5. The petitioner has filed this petition praying therein that respondents be directed to release the pension of the petitioner from April, 2012. Respondents in their objections/reply affidavit have taken the plea that because for the reasons that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment, the pension has been stopped. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of regulation 8 of Pension Regulations Army (Part-I), (2008), the competent authority has to issue an order in writing for withholding or withdrawing a pension or a part thereof. Learned counsel submitted that no such order has been passed. Learned counsel further submitted that in Criminal Appeal, sentence of the petitioner has been suspended by the Court on the ground that strong prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that for the above stated reasons, respondents be directed to release the pension to the petitioner. 7. Mr. Learned counsel further submitted that in Criminal Appeal, sentence of the petitioner has been suspended by the Court on the ground that strong prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that for the above stated reasons, respondents be directed to release the pension to the petitioner. 7. Mr. Pangotra, learned ASGI submitted that regulation 8 supra has been complied with and made reference to the Annexure R-2 of the objections/reply affidavit, reference has already made in this order. 8. The sentence of the petitioner has been suspended in Criminal Appeal. His conviction stands as on date. 9. In the facts of this case regulation 8 supra is attracted in all fours. The order, reference of which is made in Annexure R-2 has already been issued for suspension of the pension of the petitioner. Said order is not called in question. There is no merit in this petition. 10. For the above stated reasons, this writ petition held to be meritless and is accordingly dismissed. 11. Interim direction stands vacated.