Full Text
Translation output
i:.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)9983/2015
SURESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr.NirajJha,Advocates.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)9983/2015
SURESH KUMAR Petitioner
Through Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr.NirajJha,Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OFINDIA&ORS Respondent
Through Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor,Advocate.
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.NirajJha,Advocates.
HARDIP SINGH AND ORS Petitioner
Through Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr.NirajJha,Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OFINDIA AND ORS Respondent
Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate with Ms.Dipanjali Tyaig,Advocate.
Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate with Ms.Dipanjali Tyaig,Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
®/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 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. 38/37/08-
P&PW(A)dated September,2008. He submits thatthe post, which was
2017:DHC:8227-DB 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 tojudgment in W.P.(C)No.8012/2013,S.A.Khan
& Anr. Vs. Union ofIndia & Ors.,dated 9* April,2015 and W.P.(C)NO. 3035/2016,RantPhal Vs. Union ofIndia & 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 In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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 bythe respondents within a period ofeight weeksand 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 2017:DHC:8227-DB
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
®/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 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. 38/37/08-
P&PW(A)dated September,2008. He submits thatthe post, which was
2017:DHC:8227-DB 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 tojudgment in W.P.(C)No.8012/2013,S.A.Khan
& Anr. Vs. Union ofIndia & Ors.,dated 9* April,2015 and W.P.(C)NO. 3035/2016,RantPhal Vs. Union ofIndia & 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 bythe respondents within a period ofeight weeksand 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 2017:DHC:8227-DB
JUDGMENT