Full Text
Date of Order : February 20, 2018
RAJENDRA PRAKASH TRIVEDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.N.C.Gupta, Advocate
Through: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr.V.Govinda Ramanan, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner was compulsorily retired on 27th March, 2012 and he challenges impugned order of 9th November, 2012 (Annexure P-2) whereby two-third pension of `5,59,823/- was credited to his account.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had made several Representations to respondents to seek full pension instead of 2/3rd pension and the said Representations have not been responded to, thereby compelling petitioner to serve a legal notice of 5th September, 2017 (Annexure P-7) upon respondents. It is further submitted that there is no response to the said legal notice also.
3. Learned counsel for respondents raises the question of territorial jurisdiction while relying upon Supreme Court’s decision in M/s.Sterling 2018:DHC:1257 W.P.(C) No.1455/2018 Page 2 Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. ILR (2011) VI Delhi 729.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to third respondent to positively respond to petitioner’s legal notice (Annexure P-7), if not already done, within a period of six weeks from today and in case full pension is not to be granted to petitioner, then reasons for it be indicated in the response so given and petitioner be apprised of it within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of his remedies as available in law, if need be.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of while leaving the question of territorial jurisdiction open, as there is no adjudication on merits in this petition. Dasti.
JUDGE FEBRUARY 20, 2018 mamta