Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1194 (HP)

Amar Nath v. Union Of India

2017-10-25

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "i) To quash the letter dated 24.1.2012 issued by respondent No. 2 for not counting the period from 10.5.1969 to 31.3.1977 as qualifying service in CRPF for pension purpose with further directions to the respondents to grant the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner in view of his continuous service rendered with the respondents w.e.f. 10.5.1969 to 30.4.1986 with further directions to grant consequential arrears accruing thereto along-with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment. ii) Any order as this Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may be passed in the interest of justice. iii) Entire record pertaining to instant case may please be summoned and examined, which would help this Hon''ble Court to arrive at just conclusion. iv) The writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that no pension has been paid to him for the service which he rendered with CRPF w.e.f. 10.5.1969 to 30.04.1986. According to him, the respondents have construed as if he served in CRPF only for a period of nine years and one month. The remaining service rendered by him in CRPF has been completely ignored which act of the respondents is both arbitrary as well as totally unjust. 3. Though no reply has been filed to the petition, however, Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents while drawing the attention of this Court to communication Annexure P-4, dated 24.1.2012, appended with the petition submits that reason for not counting the said service is evident from the contents of the said communication which is self explanatory and thus the petitioner is not entitled for any relief which he is claiming by way of present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 5. It is not in dispute that as uptill 31.03.1977, the petitioner remained as Army Reservist and in his capacity as such, he continued to draw pension while also serving in CRPF. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 5. It is not in dispute that as uptill 31.03.1977, the petitioner remained as Army Reservist and in his capacity as such, he continued to draw pension while also serving in CRPF. Simultaneously, a perusal of communication Annexure P-4, dated 24.01.2012, demonstrates that period up to 31.3.1977 was not counted as qualifying service in CRPF for pension purpose because from 10.05.1969 to 31.03.1977, petitioner drew reservist pension. Period post 31.3.1977 up to the time petitioner served with CRPF accounted for nine years and one month only, for which he was not entitled for pension from CRPF as per rules. Along-with the writ petition, nothing stands appended by the petitioner from which it could be inferred that period w.e.f. 10.05.1969 to 31.1.1977 i.e. the period, for which the petitioner while serving in CRPF drew reservist pension, could have been simultaneously also counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension from CRPF. During the course of arguments also, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not draw the attention of this Court to any rule or any departmental notification etc to this effect. 6. Undoubtedly, pension is not a bounty but is the hard earned property of an employee, however, entitlement for pension is governed by the service conditions and grant of pension is not a matter of right. An employee is entitled for pension in accordance with the statutory rules etc. which are in vogue at the time of his superannuation. In the present case, in the absence of there being any statutory provision or rule enabling the petitioner to have had counted the service rendered by him w.e.f. 10.5.1969 to 31.3.1977 in CRPF, for the purpose of getting pension from CRPF, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It cannot be said that the respondents have arbitrarily not counted this particular period as qualifying period for pension under CRPF. In view of above discussion, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No orders as to costs.