CPL Rohtash Singh Sahrawat v. Union of India and Anr

Delhi High Court · 06 Dec 2022 · 2022:DHC:5363-DB
Suresh Kumar Kait; Neena Bansal Krishna
W.P.(C) 16723/2022
2022:DHC:5363-DB
administrative other Procedural

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the petitioner's claim for pension and retiral benefits within eight weeks, emphasizing procedural compliance before judicial relief.

Full Text
Translation output
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005363
W.P.(C) 16723/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 6, 2022
W.P.(C) 16723/2022
CPL ROHTASH SINGH SAHRAWAT (RETD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Randhawa, Advocate
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Garg and Ms. Payal Agrawal, Advocates with Mr. Dipesh Choudhary, GP
GP Capt. Amulya Dayal and SGT Mritunjay, Air Force
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. Vide the present writ petition, petitioner seeks following relief(s): “a) Issue writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature (including reading into Regulation 121 of Pension Regulations for Air Force 1961 such a provision as may be deemed fit & proper to cover cases like the instant one) to the Respondent to empathetically consider the case of humble Petitioner for either the grant of Re.[1] as notional/token Amount of Pension from the date of My Lords' Order, or to grant him such non-financial retiral benefits as will facilitate his rehabilitation in Civil life -- including Medical benefits under ECHS (which is a Contributory Health Scheme), CSD facilities and drawing Rations on Payment from any Air Force Unit. b) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 16:09 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005363 W.P.(C) 16723/2022

2. Learned counsel for the respondents, who is appearing on advance notice, submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief(s) sought vide the present writ petition as he has not completed the requisite period in service with the respondents.

3. On query from the learned counsel for respondents as to how much service is required and why the petitioner is not entitled for the relief(s) sought in the present petition, learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to take instructions to assist the Court on the next date of hearing.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not made any representation to the respondents, therefore, we hereby direct the respondents to consider the present writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and decide the same within 8 weeks with a reasoned order. Decision on the representation shall be communicated by the respondents to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

5. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.

6. Needless to say, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on his representation, he may approach the appropriate forum, as per law.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE DECEMBER 6, 2022 16:09