← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/9235/2016

Hardip Singh And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS

2017-08-02Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla2 pages

$~17& 18 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 9983/2015 SURESH KUMAR Petitioner Through Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Niraj Jha, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent Through Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr.

Waize Ali Noor, Advocate.

W.P.(C) 9235/2016 HARDIP SINGH AND ORS Petitioner Through Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Niraj Jha, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondent Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate with Ms. Dipanjali Tyaig, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

ORDER

®/o 02.08.2017 After some hearing, counsel for the petitioners states that he would not be pressing for relief claiming parity with the retired Indian Army i:.

personnel.

• Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are not being paid pension in terms of clause 4.2 of DoPT's OM F.No. 38/37/08P&PW(A) dated September, 2008. He submits that the post, which was Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

held by the petitioners, has now been upgraded and accordingly the pension has to be paid on the basis of the new Grade Pay in the Pay Band. Reference is also made to judgment in W.P. (C) No.8012/2013, S.A. Khan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 9* April, 2015 and W.P. (C) No. 3035/2016, Rant Phal Vs. Union of India & Ors., dated 3*^^ August, 2016. He submits that the DoPT has accepted the said decisions and has issued a consequential OM on 6'^ April, 2016.

Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would make a representation enclosing therewith copy of the aforesaid judgements. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. In case the petitioners make a representation, as has been stated, the same would be considered and examined by the respondents within a period of eight weeks and the decision would be communicated to them. The petitioners, if aggrieved, will be entitled to challenge the decision in accordance with law. SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAVIN CHAWLA,J.

AUGUST 02, 2017/NA