Lt. Col. Surjit Singh Gill and Others Vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 23 Apr 2010
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Hon'ble Bench

Augustine George Masih, J

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32

Judgement Text

Translate:

Augustine George Masih, J.

C.M. No. 50.08 of 2010

1. Prayer in the present application is for listing the case for final disposal in the light of the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2007 titled as Union of India and Ors. v. N.K. Nair and Ors. and other connected writ petitions preferred

before the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

2. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents on the last date of hearing. Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Central Government Counsel, has put in

appearance on behalf of the respondents.

3. Heard counsel for the parties.

4. Prayer made in the application is allowed.

5. The main case is taken up for hearing with the consent of the counsel for the parties.

6. Application stands disposed of.

CWP No. 11230 of 2008

7. Counsel for the petitioners states that the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil)

No. 56 of 2007 titled as Union of India and Ors. v. N.K. Nair and Ors. and other connected writ petitions. The said judgment was pronounced

by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 08.03.2010, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has upheld and affirmed the Division Bench judgment of the

High Court of Kerala and held the official entitled to grant of rank pay retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1986. He, therefore, contends that the present

writ petition be allowed in the same terms. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the contention, as raised by the counsel for the

petitioners.

8. Heard counsel for the parties.

9. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 08.03.2010, has held as follows:

ORDER

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mohan Jain, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India.

Application for intervention in T.P.(C) No. 56/2007 is allowed.

Since the issue involved in the writ petitions pending before the various High Courts is the same as in Writ Petition (c) Nos. 96/2009 and 34/2009

pending before this Court, this transfer petition is allowed. Writ Petition Nos. 11056/2006, 11128/2006, 10810/2006, 13508/2006, 13497/2006

and 18176 of 2006 pending before the High Court of Kerala, Writ Petition No. 13904/2006 pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

and Writ Petition Nos. 1935/2006, 1934/2006, 1957/2006 and 47909/2006 pending before the High Court of Allahabad are directed to be

transferred to this Court and taken on Board.

The prayer in these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is for grant of benefits awarded by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High

Court vide his judgment dated 5.10.1998 in O.P. 2448/1996 which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal

No. 518/1999 by judgment dated 4.7.2003.

We have carefully perused the judgment dated 5.10.1998 of the learned Single Judge as well as judgment dated 4.7.2003 of the Division Bench of

the High Court of Kerala and we respectfully agree with the reasoning given therein for grant of rank pay retrospectively from 1.1.1986. We also

direct interest to be paid thereon at 6% p.a. Accordingly, these writ petitions as well as the transferred writ petitions are allowed.

No order as to costs.

(Markandey Katju, J.)

(R.M. Lodha, J.)

New delhi;

March 08, 2010.

10. The present writ petition is allowed in the same terms with a further direction that the amount of arrears along with interest be released to the

petitioners within a period of five months'' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

From The Blog
Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court: 8-Year Service Termination Cannot Be Justified
Read More
Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Oct
23
2025

Story

Supreme Court Asks Centre to Respond on Online Gambling Ban
Read More