Jiten Chandra Saikia vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 4048 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Jiten Chandra Saikia vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 7 June, 2024

                                                                         Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010227512016




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/2554/2016

            JITEN CHANDRA SAIKIA
            S/O. LT. BAPU RAM SAIKIA, VILL. SOLMARI NO. 80, P.S. BIHPURIA, DIST.
            LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
            NEW DELHI.

            2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES
             LAITMUKHRA
             SHILLONG
             MEGHALAYA.

            3:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES
             MANIPUR RANGE
             IMPHAL
             DIST. SENAPATI.

            4:THE COMMANDANT
             21 ASSAM RIFLES
             MANIPUR RANGE
             IMPHAL
             DIST. SENAPATI

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR B KAUSHIK

Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C.


                                    BEFORE
                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
                                                                       Page No.# 2/17

                                    JUDGMENT

Date : 07-06-2024

Heard Mr. S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC for the respondents.

1. This petition is directed against the letter/order dated 09.03.2012 passed by the Deputy Commandant, SO2 (NE) for Director General of Assam Rifles, Shillong, whereby, claim of the petitioner for pension and gratuity benefits has been rejected and for a direction to grant pension and gratuity benefits to the petitioner.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Ex- Naik/Clerk on 01.08.1982 vide allotment no. Ex. C/361150 in the Assam Rifles Battalion. While serving in the said post, on 10.01.1992, when the father of the petitioner and his wife along with daughters were undergoing medical treatment, he made a request to the Commandant No. 1, Assam Rifles for transfer to a nearest Battalion of 5 Assam Rifles and to place him near his home town. The petitioner communicated to the concerned authorities expressing his difficulties which he was facing due to domestic problem. However, same was rejected.

3. The father of the petitioner had expired on 30.10.1992. The petitioner had taken a leave for 15 (fifteen) days. Thereafter, due to family problems, the petitioner had applied for 60 (sixty) days earned leave and again for extension of 1 (one) month leave, which was rejected and the petitioner was directed to rejoin his duty. The petitioner being aggrieved, had written a letter to the Director General of Assam Rifles at Shillong and DIG, MP Range (Imphal) and Commandant 21 Assam Rifles (Manipur), expressing his problems elaborately. Thereafter, the petitioner had rejoined on 19.04.1993 at the Battalion Page No.# 3/17

Headquarter. He was sent to the Director General Assam Rifles, Imphal, where the petitioner was interviewed. Finally, the petitioner was kept under supervision till finalization of SOS from the Headquarter Director General, Assam Rifles. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a discharge order dated 30.09.1993 and he was sent back to his home.

4. It is contended that after the discharge, on facing financial hardship, he filed a representation to the Director General,Assam Rifles, Shillong, for re- enrollment,which was rejected on the ground that there is no provision for re- employment of the person discharged at his own request. Having no option, the petitioner made a representation on 20.12.1995 for providing pension and other service benefits. Thereafter, petitioner has filed several representations from time to time, the last being on 31.12.2011.

5. The Director General, Assam Rifles vide impugned letter/order dated 09.03.2012 intimated the petitioner that he has been discharged from service on compassionate ground w.e.f. 30.09.1993 before completion of 20 (twenty) years qualifying service, which is treated as resignation from the service. It is also intimated that as per Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules, 1972),resignation from service or post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service and as such, the petitioner is not eligible to get any pension and gratuity benefits. Being aggrieved by the impugned letter/order dated 09.03.2012 issued by the Deputy Commandant, SO2 (NE) for Director General of Assam Rifles, Shillong,the present petition is filed.

6. Mr. S. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the since the petitioner has served the Assam Rifles for a period of 12 years from 01.07.1982 to 30.09.1993 and was compelled to accept the discharge from Page No.# 4/17

service on compassionate ground as a result of domestic problem, he is entitled to be provided with pension and other benefits. He submits that the discharge of the petitioner on compassionate ground does not amount to resignation as contended by the respondent authorities as he has not submitted any voluntary letter for resignation. The petitioner had requested the authorities only to transfer him near to his hometown so as to enable him to resolve his domestic problem.

7. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel, while referring to the provision of Rules 39, 40, 41 and 49 of the Pension Rules, 1972, submits that in view of the provisions prescribed in the above Rules, the petitioner is entitled to pension and gratuity benefits, which has been illegally denied to him. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order dated 09.03.2012 may be set aside and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to grant pension and gratuity benefits to the petitioner.

8. Mr. Hazarika has placed reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of The Chennai Port Trust represented by its Chairman vs. V. Admimulam, in Writ Appeal No. 958 of 2011. Paragraph no.8 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"8. From the records available, it is noted that the military authority concerned, by a letter, dated 10.4.2002, had requested the respondent port trust to count the military service of the petitioner, rendered for a period of 6 years, 6 six months and 11 days, towards the payment of civil pension. It is also noted from the communication issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Ports Wing, Government of India, dated 7.8.2002, that the Ministry of Defence had clarified that the discharge at own request, in the case of Personnel Below Officer Rank, is not treated as equal to resignation in civil service and hence, the military service in the case of Personnel Below Officer Rank can be counted for civil Page No.# 5/17

pension even in the case of discharge at own request. In such circumstances, this Court is not convinced with the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that the respondent in the present writ appeal is not entitled for the payment of civil pension, taking into account the military service rendered by him for the period, from 3.9.1960 to 14.3.1967."

9. Mr. Hazarika has also placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Govind Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India&Ors., in WP(C)10026 of 2016. Paragraph nos. 16, 19, 20, 21& 22 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

"16. Ex-Sergeant Kalan was also an NCO like the present Petitioner. He approached this Court for a direction that the Respondents to grant of pro rata pension. By that time, the letter/circular dated 19th February 1987 was already in force. In terms thereof, he would not be entitled to grant of pro rata pension as he was not a Commissioned Officer. Like the Petitioner, Ex-Sergeant Kalan was also absorbed in a PSU after completion of ten years of service. The Court has perused the order dated 12th September 1996 passed by writ Court in WP No. 3471/1996 filed by Ex-Sergeant Kalan. The operative portion of the said order is only that the Respondents should consider the Ex-Sergeant Kalan's representation dated 9th November 1994 within eight weeks from the date of the communication of the Courts order to the Respondents. In other words, the Court itself did not decide the issue whether Ex-Sergeant Kalan was entitled to the pro-rata pension notwithstanding that the circular/letter dated 19th February 1987 confines the grant of such relief only to Commissioned Officers. The Court left it entirely to the wisdom of the Respondents to allow or reject Ex- Sergeant Kalan's representation Pursuant thereto the Respondents granted Ex-Sergeant Kalan pro-rata pension. In the affidavit filed before the Court, the only explanation is that they treated his case as "a special case". There is no attempt made in the counter affidavit to explain what factors weighed with the Respondents to treat his case as "a special case".

Page No.# 6/17

19. There can be no doubt that in terms of Regulation 121, for the purposes of regular pension a PBOR in the IAF would be entitled to earn pension only after completing 15 years of minimum qualifying service. In fact that was the very question that arose for determination in the context of the Army in Ram Singh Yadav v. Union of India (supra). However, in the present case we are not concerned with the issue of grant of regular pension but pro rata pension. Regulation 121 is silent on the aspect of pro rata pension. It is circular/letter dated 19th February 1987 that provides for it but confines the benefit to Commissioned Officers subject to the stipulation that the officer must have completed 10 years of service and must have been absorbed in a PSU thereafter. The Petitioner here fulfils both criteria but is denied the benefit only because he was aPBOR/NCO.

20. A weak attempt was made by learned counsel for the Respondents to suggest that the Petitioner was not permanently absorbed in Air India and therefore his case may stand on a different footing. Apart from the fact that this is factually incorrect, the question really is whether there is any rational basis for holding a NCO/PBOR like the Petitioner disentitled to pro rata pension in terms of the letter/circular dated 19th February 1987, once such PBOR has fulfilled all other conditions for grant of pro rata pension viz., completion of ten years of regular service in the Defence Services followed by absorption in a PSU. The Court is unable to find any such justification or rational basis being put forth by the Respondents to justify the discriminatory treatment. The explanation put forth that grant of the benefit to Ex-Sergeant Kalan was because his was "a special case" and should not be treated as a precedent, and on that basis to deny the Petitioner who is identically placed the same relief, does not stand legal scrutiny.

21. With the Respondents failing to answer the principal challenge by the Petitioner to discriminatory part of thecircular/letter dated 19th February 1987, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the denial in terms of the said letter/circular of the benefit of pro rata pension to PBORs/NCOs Page No.# 7/17

like the Petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

22. The Court accordingly sets aside the letter dated 6th June 2016 issued by the Respondents as well as the letter dated 26th July 2016 issued by the MoD rejecting the Petitioner's request for grant of pro rata pension. A direction is issued to the Respondents to grant the Petitioner pro rata pension from the date of his discharge from the IAF in terms of the circular/letter dated 19th February 1987. The consequential orders be issued within a period of eight weeks. The arrears of pro rata pension to be paid to the Petitioner within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. A failure to comply with the above direction would entail the Respondents having to pay simple interest at 6% p.a. on the arrears till the date of payment."

10. On the other hand, Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC, submits that the petitioner had filed and application on 13.01.1993,seeking permission for discharge from service on compassionate ground due to domestic problem faced by the him. Accordingly, on his own request, the petitioner was discharged from the service w.e.f. 30.09.1993. He submits that discharge from service at own request is considered as a resignation from service. Referring to Rule 26 of the Pension Rules 1972, he submits that as per the said Rule, resignation from service,unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. As per Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules, 1972, minimum 20 (twenty) years of service is mandatory to earn pension and other pensionary benefits. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefits except his accumulated dues of Individual Running Ledger Account (IRLA),General Provident Fund (GPF)account and Assam Rifles Group Insurance Scheme (ARGIS). The above amount, which the petitioner is entitled, has already been paid to him.

11. Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC, submits that all other contentions made by Page No.# 8/17

the petitioner with regard to the discharge that the petitioner was compelled to accept the discharge on being forced by the respondent authorities are all cooked up stories, which cannot be accepted. Therefore, he submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and materials available on record have also been perused.

13. The petitioner was discharged from the service in the Assam Rifles on 30.09.1993, on his own request vide application dated 13.01.1993. The order of discharge has not been put to challenge. What the petitioner has sought to project in the factual aspect is that he has prayed for transfer in a place near to his hometown as he was facing domestic problems and he had not asked for discharge from the service. However, record reveals that he has filed an application on 13.01.1993, clearly seeking permission to discharge from service on compassionate ground, on account of his domestic problems. On such application, the petitioner was discharged from the service. It is also revealed from the record that after the discharge, the petitioner has filed a representation for re-employment/re-enrollment in the service, which was rejected. He has also filed several representations for grant of pension and other pensionary benefits, which has been rejected by the impugned letter/order dated 09.03.2012.

14. Having considered that the main plank of grievance raised by the petitioner is based on the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1972, it is apposite to refer and consider the relevant provisions of the above Rule.

15. Rules 39, 40, 41& 49 of the said Rules is quoted hereinbelow:

Page No.# 9/17

"39. Invalid pension.

(1) The case of a Government servant acquiring a disability, where the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) are applicable, shall be governed by the provisions of the said Section:

Provided that such employee shall produce a disability certificate from the competent authority as prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017.

(2) If a Government servant, in a case where the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) are not applicable, intends to retire from the service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service, he may apply to the Head of Department for retirement on Invalid Pension:

Provided that an application for invalid pension submitted by the spouse of the Government servant failing which by a member of the family of the Government servant may also be accepted, if the Head of Department is satisfied that the Government servant himself is not in a position to submit such application on account of himself is not mental infirmity:

Provided further that where a Government servant, who has acquired a disability and in whose case the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 20in 20 applicable, intends to retire under this rule, the Government servant shall be advised that he has the option of continuing in service with the same pay scale and service benefits which he is otherwise entitled to and in case the Government servant does not withdraw his request for retirement under this rule, his request may be processed in accordance with the provisions of this rule. (3) On receipt of an application under sub-rule (2), the Head of Office or Head of Department shall, within fifteen days of the receipt of such application, request the concerned authority for examination of the Government servant, not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of such request by the following medical authority, namely:-

(a) a Medical Board in the case of a Gazetted Government servant and of a non-Gazetted Government servant whose Page No.# 10/17

pay, as defined in Rule 9 (21) of the Fundamental Rules, 1922 exceeds fifty-four thousand rupees per month; and

(b) Civil Surgeon or a District Medical Officer or Medical Officer of equivalent status in other cases.

(4) The medical authority shall also be supplied by the Head of the Office or Head of Department in which the applicant is employed with a statement of what appears from official records to be the age of the applicant, and if a service book is being maintained for the applicant, the age recorded therein should be reported and a copy of the letter requesting for examination by the medical authority shall be endorsed to the Government servant.

(5) The Government servant shall appear before the concerned medical authority for medical examination on the date fixed by that authority and the medical authority shall examine the Government servant to ascertain whether or not the Government servant is fit for further service or whether he is fit for further service of less laborious character than that which he had been doing. (6) No medical certificate of incapacity for service may be granted unless the medical authority has received a request from the Head of his Office or Head of Department for medical examination of the Government servant.

(7) A lady doctor shall be included as a member of the Medical Board when a woman candidate is to be examined.

(8) Where the medical authority referred to in sub-rule (3) has found a Government servant mentioned in sub-rule (2) not fit for further service or has found him fit for further service of less laborious character than that which he had been doing, it shall issue a Medical Certificate in Format 6 and if the Government servant is found to be unfit for further service, he may be granted invalid pension in accordance with Rule 44 not later than forty five days from the date of the receipt of medical certificate in Format 6. (9) A Government servant, who retires from service even before completing qualifying service of ten years, shall also be granted invalid pension and, in his case, the amount of pension shall also be calculated at fifty percent of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him in accordance with Rule 44:

Page No.# 11/17

Provided that in such cases the Government servant-

(a) has been examined by the appropriate medical authority either before his appointment or after his appointment to the Government service and declared fit by such medical authority for Government service; and

(b) fulfils all other conditions mentioned in this rule for grant of invalid pension.

(10) In case, the Government servant has been found to be fit for further service of less laborious character than that which he had been doing, he shall, if, he is willing to be so employed, be employed on lower post and if there be no means of employing him even on a lower post, he may be admitted to invalid pension.

40. Compulsory retirement pension.

(1) A Government servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted, by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or retirement gratuity or both at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full superannuation pension or gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement.

(2) Whenever in the case of a Government servant the President passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less than the full superannuation pension admissible under these rules, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before such order is passed. (3) The order regarding the quantum of pension and gratuity to be granted under sub-rule (1) may be issued simultaneous with the order of imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement. Where such an order regarding the quantum of pension and gratuity to be granted under sub-rule (1) is not issued simultaneous with the order of imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement, a provisional pension and a provisional gratuity at a rate of two-thirds of full superannuation pension and gratuity shall be sanctioned to the Government servant immediately.

(4) Where a provisional pension and a provisional gratuity is Page No.# 12/17

sanctioned to the Government servant under sub-rule (3), order for grant of final pension and gratuity under sub-rule (1) shall be issued in consultation with Union Public Service Commission, where necessary, not later than three months after the date of issue of the order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement and the provisional pension shall continue to be paid till the payment of final pension and gratuity in accordance with the order issued under sub- rule (1).

(5) A pension or provisional pension granted or awarded under sub-

rule (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-rule (2), shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension mentioned in Rule 44.

41. Compassionate allowance.

(1) A Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity:

Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on superannuation pension. (2) The competent authority shall, either on its own or after taking into consideration the representation of the Government servant, if any, examine whether any compassionate allowance is to be granted and take a decision in this regard in accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (1) not later than three months after the date of issue of the order imposing the penalty of dismissal or removal from service. (3) The competent authority shall consider,-

(a) each case of dismissal and removal from service on its merit to decide whether the case deserves of special consideration for sanction of a compassionate allowance and, if so, the quantum thereof.

(b) the actual misconduct which occasioned the penalty of dismissal or removal from service and the kind of service rendered by the Government servant.

(c) in exceptional circumstances, factors like family members dependent on the Government servant along with other Page No.# 13/17

relevant factors.

(4) Where an order imposing the penalty of dismissal or removal from service was issued before the date of commencement of these rules and the competent authority, at that time, did not examine or decide whether or not any compassionate allowance was to be granted in that case, that authority shall take a decision in this regard not later than six months from the date of commencement of these rules.

(5) No compassionate allowance shall be sanctioned after the expiry of the aforesaid period of six months, to a Government servant on whom a penalty of dismissal or removal from service was imposed before the date of commencement of these rules. (6) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-

rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension under Rule 44.

49. Lapse of retirement gratuity and death gratuity Where a Government servant dies while in service or after retirement without receiving the amount of gratuity and leaves behind no family and-

(a) has made no nomination, or

(b) the nomination made by him does not subsist, the amount of retirement gratuity or death gratuity payable in respect of such Government servant under Rule 45 shall lapse to the Government:

Provided that the amount of death gratuity or retirement gratuity shall be payable to the person in whose favour a Succession Certificate in respect of the gratuity in question has been granted by a Court of Law."

16. On bare reading of the above Rules, it transpires that the above provisions relates to invalid pension, compulsory retirement pension, compassionate allowance and lapse of retirement gratuity and death gratuity, which regulates the different entitlements of the employee in cases of Page No.# 14/17

retirement, dismissal or removal from service and lapse of retirement gratuity and death gratuity on which an employee is entitled to such pension and other benefits.

17. The case of the petitioner pertains to discharge from service. Evidently, it is not a case either of invalid pension, retirement or resignation nor case of claiming compassionate allowance on dismissal or removal from service.

Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that above provisions would not be applicable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any Rules/Regulations or notifications under which the petitioner would be entitled for pension or other benefits on discharge from service, except reliance on the above referred rules of the Pension Rules, 1972. Reliance of the said provisions by the learned counsel for the petitioner, appears to be totally misconceived. Thus, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

18. Rule 26 of the Pension Rules, 1972,pertains toforfeiture of service on resignation, which is reproduced as under:

"26. Forfeiture of service on resignation

(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service.

(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.

(3) The order accepting the resignation should clearly indicate that the Government servant has resigned to join another appointmentwith proper Page No.# 15/17

permission and a specific entry to this effect shall also be made by the Head of Office in the service book of the Government servant.

(4) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2), due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him.

(5) The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:-

(i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation;

(ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper;

(iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person applies for permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than ninety days;

(iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.

(6) Request for withdrawal of a resignation shall not be accepted by the appointing authority where a Government servant resigns his service or post with a view to taking up an appointment in or under a private commercial company or in or under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government.

Page No.# 16/17

(7) When an order is passed by the appointing authority allowing a person to withdraw his resignation and to resume duty, the order shall be deemed to include the condonation of interruption in service but the period of interruption shall not count as qualifying service.

(8) A resignation submitted for the purpose of Rule 35 or Rule 36 shall not entail forfeiture of past service under the Government.

19. On the perusal of above Rules, it is seen that the same pertains to forfeiture of service on resignation. Although the respondent authorities have treated the discharge from the service of the petitioner as resignation, on consideration of the provision, I am of the considered view that the discharge of the petitioner cannot be treated as resignation and thus, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the basis of Rule 26 of the Pension Rules, 1972equally appears to have been wrongly applied. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any Rule or Regulation under which the petitioner is entitled for pension on discharge from service, no relief can be granted merely on the wrong application of Rules by the respondents.

20. I have perused the above judgements cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of the above case laws, I am of the view that same would not come to the aid of the petitioner as the same were considered and observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and Delhi on its attending facts of those cases.

21. Having considered the matters in its entirety and considering that the petitioner has been discharged from service on his own request, coupled with the non-applicability of the above referred provisions of the Pension Rules, 1972,as noted above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not Page No.# 17/17

entitled for any pension/pensionary benefits under the above referred provisions of the Pension Rules, 1972, after being discharged from service.

22. In view of the discussion and conclusion made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. I find no merit in the writ petition.

23. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

24. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition shall not be a bar to the respondent authorities to pay any amount due as per the entitlement of the petitioner, as in the impugned letter dated 09.03.2012, it reflects that for making further payment, the petitioner has been requested to liaise with the 21 Assam Rifles, for early payment. It is also made clear that there shall not be any bar to consider the claim of the petitioner, if he is entitled to pension or other benefits under any other provision of Rules or notifications.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant