w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



S. Alagar v/s The Additional Director General, Army Postal Services & Others

    O.A.No.5 of 2011

    Decided On, 31 March 2011

    At, Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Chennai

    By, THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN (MEMBER-JUDICIAL) & THE HONOURABLE LT GEN (RETD) S. PATTABHIRAMAN (MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE)

    For the Applicant: R. Senthamil Selvi, Advocate. For the Respondents: M. Devendran, SPCCG.



Judgment Text

(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan)

1. The case is posted to-day for status report or order. But, no status report filed. Hence, the following order is passed on merit.

2. This application is for the grant of revised disability pension on the basis of the V & VI Central Pay Commission Recommendations. After going through the materials placed on record this Tribunal thought it fit that instead of filing counter the respondents can file a Status Report as to the effect of granting revised disability pension to the applicant as per the V & VI Central Pay Commission Recommendations. But, neither counter nor status report was filed before this Tribunal even after availing sufficient time for the same. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government Mr.M.Devendran, after coming to know that this Tribunal is not for granting any further time for filing counter, has come forward to make an endorsement on the application as to the effect that the Tribunal can pass suitable orders on the basis of the materials available before this Tribunal. An endorsement has been made to that effect on the application.

3. According to the applicant, he joined as a Postal Clerk in the Postal Department in the year 1965 and he was selected for service in Army Postal Service in the year 1967 and he was appointed as Warrant Officer and he served in Jammu Thawi, Rajauri (Pakistan Border) and at Himachal Pradesh under C/o. 56 APO. While he was working as a Warrant Officer at Himachal Pradesh, he was discharged from the Military service in the month of September 1971 on medical ground with 40% disability. The applicant was discharged by the respondents followed by a PPO dated 16.05.1983 stating that the applicant is eligible to get disability pension with effect from 19.04.1982. Initially the disability pension was paid to the applicant at the rate of Rs.19.20 and thereafter, the same was revised as per the IV Central Pay Commission Recommendations. After the discharge, the applicant had continued his service in civil side as Postal Assistant from October 1971. The respondents had not paid the Dearness Allowance eligible to the Disability Pensioner, whereas he was paid Dearness Pay at the rate of eligible percentage available to the basic disability pension. The grievance of the applicant is that even though the Government of India had increased the rate of disability element of pension under V & VI Central Pay Commission, the same was not given effect to in the case of the applicant. From the intimation received from the 4th respondent dated 02.02.2010, the applicant was made to understand that his case was recommended to the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (P) from time to time and he was advised to take up the matter with the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (P). The applicant had made a representation to the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (P), Allahabad, the 2nd respondent herein, on 17.02.2010 with a request to grant him the disability pension on the basis of the V & VI Central Pay Commission Recommendations. The 3rd respondent in his letter dated 15.04.2010 has mentioned that the Director of Accounts, Postal, Madras – 8 should amend the revised rates with effect from January 1986 as well as from 01.01.2006. Since the 2nd respondent has not heeded to the request made by the applicant, he had approached the 4th respondent with a request to pay him the disability element of pension at the rate of 40% in accordance with the recommendations made by the V & VI Central Pay Commission. Since the applicant has not received any favourable order from the respondents, he has filed this application for grant of disability element of pension at the revised rate with effect from 01.01.1996 and from 01.01.2006 based on the recommendations of the V & VI Central Pay Commission.

4. On the basis of the endorsement made by the learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government Mr.M.Devendran today, We went through the materials available before this Tribunal in this application.

5. The applicant was enrolled in the Army Postal service on 25.07.1967 and he was discharged from service on medical grounds with effect from 01.09.1971 afternoon. PPO No.2639/S, dated 16.05.1983 was issued to the applicant under which the disability pension sanctioned was Rs.19/20 per month. There is an endorsement in the said PPO as to the effect that the said disability pension was enhanced to Rs.180/- per month on the basis of the IV Central Pay Commission Recommendations. The two important letters found along with the material papers before this Tribunal are Ex.A.4 – letter dated 16.10.2008 addressed by 3rd respondent to 4th respondent with a request to take action as against the claim of the applicant for revised disability pension. In Ex.A.4 itself it has been specifically stated that the applicant is entitled to disability element of pension at the rate of Rs.620/- per month with effect from 01.01.1996 towards 40% disability. Along with the said letter, the applicant’s petition for revision in disability pension as per the VI Central Pay Commission Recommendations was also enclosed for necessary action at 4th respondent’s end. In the reply of the 4th respondent dated 02.02.2010 vide reference No.Pen-I/GENL/Disability Pension/09-10/11/6580, the applicant has been directed to take up the matter with the Chief CDA (P) [2nd respondent herein]. Accordingly, the applicant addressed the 2nd respondent through his letter dated 17.02.2010. The 3rd respondent in his letter No.8363824/Rev/DP, dated 15.04.2010, addressed to 4th respondent, had stated that the revision of disability pension can be ordered only by the 4th respondents and not by the 2nd respondent since pension revision as per the IV Central Pay Commission was done earlier by 4th respondent only. Again the applicant addressed the 4th respondent through his letter dated 10.06.2010, but he is yet to receive a reply from them, which made the applicant to approach this Tribunal with this application.

6. Even though the respondents 1 to 3 practically admit that the applicant is entitled to revised disability pension on the basis of the V & VI Central Pay Commission Recommendations, it is not known what made the 2nd and 4th respondents not to implement the same or extend the benefits conferred under V & VI Central Pay Commission to the applicant who is otherwise entitled to, for the same. The 4th respondent, who had already revised the disability pension on the basis of the IV Central Pay Commission to the applicant, was reluctant to revise the disability pension to the applicant on the basis of the V & VI Central Pay Commission Recommendations for the reasons be

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

st known to him. After exhausting all his remedies, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for a genuine cause. Under such circumstances, We are of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to the relief asked for in this application. 7. In fine, the application is allowed and the respondents, particularly R2 & R4, are directed to grant disability element of pension at revised rate with effect from 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 based on the recommendations of V & VI Central Pay Commission. For compliance two months. Failure in compliance will entail the applicant to claim 6% interest per annum for the arrears. We hold that it is a fit case to be awarded with cost which is quantified as Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the respondents.
O R