Hc/G.D. Riazul Haq vs Union Of India
1997 Latest Caselaw 175 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

(1) The petitioners in the aforesaid petitions were in Military Service in the Indian Army, and retired from the service prior to 1.1.1986. The petitioners, after retirement were reemployed in the Central Industrial Security Force on fresh terms and conditions, regarding their pay. These petitioners remained posted on different units and different stations as the members of the C.I.S.F. They were, also reemployed prior to 1.1.1986. At the time of reemployment, there were no conditions attached that the respondents will deduct the Military pension from the pay of the petitioners and, in fact, they were receiving the military pension w.e.f. 1.1.1986.

(2) According to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, their salary, pension and allowances were increased. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents by which they are deducting the enhanced military pension and deductions are done from retrospective effect from the pay of the petitioners.

(3) It is not disputed that all these matters are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. G. Vasudevan Pillay . This judgment has been followed in number of writ petitions by a Division Bench of this court consisting of Devinder Gupta and M.S.A. Siddiqui, JJ. and by other Benches. The Supreme Court had occasion to examine this issue in the aforesaid case and their Lordships have held as under:- "The decision to reduce the enhanced pension from pay of those ex-servicemen only who were holding civil posts on 01.01.86 following their re-employment is, however, unconstitutional."

(4) A large number of petitions were allowed by this court on the strength of the case of Union of India and others vs. G. Vasudevan Pillay and others (supra). Consequently, I allow these writ petitions and hold that the impugned decision/action of the respondents to deduct the military pension or any part thereof from the pay of the petitioners would be-bad in law and, quash and set aside the same.

(5) In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court and of this court, I direct the respondent's to re-fix the pay of the petitioners by ignoring the military pension and further restrain the respondents from making any recovery of the alleged arrears. Any amount, if recovered pursuant to the impugned action, will be duly refunded to the petitioners within three months from today.

(6) The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed of.