TE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 837 838 and 839 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 105 1990 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos 1381 2994 of 1989 and CR No 954 of 1989
Soli J Sorabjee Attorney General Kapil Sibal Additional Solicitor General GL Sanghi Dr YS Chitale Harish N Salve HK Puri Rajeev Sharma Ravinder Nath VB Saharya PK Jain Krishna Moorthy Iyer Prem Malhotra AC Sehgal Mrs Urmila Sirur RL Jain SK Tredal Ms kitty Kumarmanglam RP Dave Mrs Sushma Suri Ms M Biswas and Ashok Mathur for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
Leave granted
These appeals from the decision of the Delhi High Court raise the question with regard to landlord s right to evict the tenant under Section 14 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958  The Act  and the corresponding right of the tenant to resist the eviction proceedings
Section 14 B is a special provision made by the Legislature conferring certain rights to persons belonging to Armed Forces to recover from their tenants immediate possession of the premises for their occupation
Mahendra Raj the common petitioner in SLP Nos
7146 and 1142590 is a tenant occupying the premises of the respondent Col Ashok Puri
The petitioner in SLP No 7364 is also a tenant but occupying the premises belonging to the respondent Brig
VN Channa
In the action for eviction brought by the respondents on the ground that they need the premises for their occupation the tenants sought leave to contest the application
But the Rent Controller was not satisfied with the facts disclosed by the tenants in their affidavits and therefore denied leave to contest the application for eviction
He considered the affidavits of the parties and accepted the case of the landlord and directed that the tenants shall be evicted
In the case of Mahendra Raj the Rent Controller made an order dated 2 September 1989 inter alia observing that the landlord is living in a rented house that he is paying rent of Rs2000 pm and that he requires the premises for himself and the members of his family
The eviction order was challenged by the tenant by means of revision petition before the Delhi High Court
Almost simultaneously the tenant also filed a writ 370 petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of Section 14 B
On 10 May 1990 the High Court dismissed the revision as well as the writ petition
Against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition the tenant has preferred SLP No 7146 of 1990
Against the order dismissing the revision petition the tenant has preferred SLP No 11425 of 1990
The tenant in SLP No 7364 of 1990 has also challenged the order of eviction in a revision petition before the High Court and we are told that the revision is still pending
Like the other tenant he has also questioned the validity of Section 14 B before the High Court under Article 226
The High Court dismissed that petition following the decision in Mahendra Raj s case
It would be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act before dealing with the points raised in these cases
The Act applies to premises which are defined by Section 2i as meaning inter alia any building or part of a building which is or is intended to be let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any or other purpose
Section 14 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant
This provision is however subject to the exceptions provided under several clauses of the proviso
Section 14le allows a decree for ejectment to be passed if the Court or Controller is satisfied that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him provided that the landlord is the owner of the premises and he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation
The explanation thereunder states that for the purpose of the clause 141e premises let for residential purposes include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are without the consent of the landlord used incidentally for commercial or other purposes
Section 14le is further restricted by sub sections 6 and 7 of Section 14
Sub section 6 imposes a restriction on the landlord who has acquired any premises by transfer not to evict the tenant under Section 14le within the period of five years from the date of acquisition
Sub section 7 imposes an obligation on the Court where an order for eviction is made on the ground specified in Section 14le to give the tenant the minimum period of six months for delivery of possession to the landlord
371 By Act 18 of 1976 the Legislature has introduced certain changes in the Act with effect from 1 December 1975
Section 14 A was introduced in Chapter Ill providing certain rights to a person occupying residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any other local authority
If he is required to vacate such residential accommodation on the ground that he owns in the Union Territory of Delhi a house in his name or in the name of his spouse or dependent children he could recover immediate possession of his premises let out by him notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Act or any other law for the time being in force
Simultaneously Chapter III A was introduced containing Section 25 A to 25 C providing summary trial of the applications filed landlords classified under Section 14 A and also applications filed by any other landlord for bona fide requirement of their premises under Section 14le
By the Amending Act 57 of 1988 some more classes of landlords were carved out from the class of general landlords
Section 14 B to Section 14 D are the provisions
The released or retired persons from armed forces or the dependents of the member of armed forces who had been killed in action are covered by Section 14 B They could recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them if they are required for their own residence
The retired employees of the Central Government and of the Delhi Administration are covered by Section 14 C
They could recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them if they are needed for their own residence
The landlords who are widows are covered by Section 14 D with similar right to recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them or by their husband
These classified landlords are also given the benefit of the summary trial under Chapter III A by introducing Sections 14 B to 14 D in sub section 1 of Section 25 B The sub section 1 of Section 25 B as it stands provides that every application by a landlord for recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause e of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 14 or under Section 14 A or under Section 14 B or under Section 14 C or under Section 14 D shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section
There are however no corresponding amendments to sub sections 2 to 5 of Section 25 B Omission to make corresponding amendments particularly to sub sections 4  5 of Section 25 B has given rise to the arguments for the petitioners that the tenant s right to contest the application for eviction on the grounds specified in Section 141e cannot be denied even as against the classified landlords falling under Sections 14 B to 14 D
It 372 was also argued that the classified landlords may prove the facts stated in their respective provisions but the tenant is entitled to contest the application by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlords from obtaining an order of eviction on the grounds specified under Section 14le
The acceptance of the submissions urged for petitioners would practically obliterate the purpose and object of classification of landlords under Sections 14 B to 14 D who are carved out from the general landlords
Indeed it would render the whole exercise of creating special classes of landlords with specified rights to recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them nugatory
Before the introduction of Sections 14 B to 14 D Section 14le was the only remedy available to all landlords except those covered under Section 14 A to recover possession of their premises
The Controller shall give the tenant leave to contest the applications if the tenant in his affidavit discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlords from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the premises on the grounds specified under Section 14le
It is but natural when the landlord brings an action for recovery of possession of the premises covered under Section 14le the tenant has the legitimate right to show that the landlord does not qualify under or satisfy the requirements of Section 14le
But today the remedy under Section 14le is available only to landlords in general or the landlords who are not classified landlords under Sections 14 B to 14 D
The classified landlords have been conferred with certain rights which are different from and independent of the rights under Section 14 1e
For a proper understanding we may set out Section 14le side by side with Section 14 B Section 14 1 e Section 14 B 14
Protection of tenant 14
B Right to recover against eviction
immediate possession of premises to accrue to members of the armed forces etc
1 Notwithstanding anything 1 Where the landlord to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a is a released or retired no order or decree for person from any armed the recovery of possession forces and the premises let of any premises shall be out by him are required for made by any Court on his own residence or 373 Controller in favour of the b is a dependent of a landlord against a tenant member of any armed forces who had been killed in action and the premises let Provided that the Controller out by such member are may on an application made required for the residence to him in the prescribed of the family of such manner make an order for the member recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds Such person or as the case only namely may be the dependent may within one year from the xxx xxx xxx date of his release or retirement from such armed e that the premises let forces or as the case may for residential purposes are be the date of death of required bona fide by the such member or within a landlord for occupation as a period of one year from the residence for himself or for date of commencement of the any member of his family Delhi Rent Control dependent on him if he is Amendment Act 1988 the owner thereof or for whichever is later apply to any person for whose benefit the Controller for the premises are held and recovering the immediate that the landlord or such possession of such premises
person has no other 2 Where the landlord is a reasonably suitable residen member of any of the armed tial accommodation  forces and has a period of less than one year preceding the date of his retirement and the premises let out by him are required for his own residence after his retirement he may at any Explanation For the time within a period of one purposes of this clause year before the date of his premises let for retirement apply to the residential purposes  Controller for recovering include any premises which the immediate possession of having been let for use as a such premises
residence are without the consent of the landlord 2 Where the landlord is a used incidentally for member of any of the armed commercial or other forces and has a period of purposes less than one year preceding the date of his retirement and the premises let out by him are required for his own residence after his retirement he may at any time within a period of one year before the date of his retirement apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises
3 Where the landlord referred to in sub section 1 or sub section 2 has let out more than one premises it shall be open to him to make an application under that sub section in respect of only one of the premises chosen by him
Explanation For the purposes of this Section armed forces  means an armed force of the Union constituted under an Act of Parliament and includes a member of the police force constituted under Section 3 of the 34 of 1978
 374 To make the picture complete we may also read sub sections 6  7 of Section 14
146 Where a landlord has acquired any premises transfer no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under sub section 1 on the ground specified in clause e of the proviso thereto unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition
147 Where an order for recovery of possession of any premises is made on the ground specified in clause e of the proviso to sub section 1 the landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order
 Under Section 14le the premises let out for residence could be recovered from the tenant if the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own occupation or for any member of his family dependent on him
The eviction could also be sought for any person for whose benefit the premises are held
The condition being apart from the requirement must be bona fide there shall be no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation for the landlord or for whose benefit the premises are held
The explanation to Section 141e provides premises let for residential purposes include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are without the consent of the landlord used incidentally for commercial or other purposes
That means if with the consent of the landlord the premises let for residential purposes are used for commercial or other purposes the landlord will have difficult task to evict such tenant
Sub section 6 of Section 14 provides protection to the tenant from being evicted from the premises which are transferred to third parties
The transferee landlord must wait for five years from the date of the transfer or acquisition before he moves the Court for eviction of the tenant already in occupation of the premises
Sub section 7 is again a protection to the tenant requiring the Court or the Controller to give a minimum period of six months to vacate from the date of order of eviction
This is a complete code governing the disposal of application filed under Section 141e
Under Section 14 B the right to evict the tenant is available to two categories of persons i The person who has let out the premises and ii the dependent of a member of any armed forces who had let 375 out the premises but killed in action
In the former case the premises must be required for his own residence and in the latter for the residence of the family of such member
It may be noted that Section 14le requires that the premises should have been let for residential purposes but the landlord who seeks eviction need not be the person who has let out
But Section 14 B narrows down such right
It is he who has let out alone could evict or the dependent of the person who has let out but since killed in action
Secondly Section 14 B uses the expression the premises let out by him unlike the expression used in Section 14le the premises let out for residential purposes
The definition of premises under sub section 2i means any building or part of a building which is or intended to be let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose  
It is clear that Section 14 B does not require that the premises should have been let out for residential purposes and the purpose of letting out seems to be irrelevant
But he who has let out alone could seek eviction of his tenant or the dependent of  member of any armed forces who had let out but since killed in action
Section 14 B also provides the period of limitation for claiming possession of such premises but no such limitation is provided under Section 14le
Sub section 3 of Section 14 B imposes further restriction on the landlord who is having more than one premises
Such a landlord cannot ask for possession of more than one of the premises but he can choose any one of the premises which he has let out
Here again we find that there is no such restriction to a landlord covered under Section 14le provided the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation
Section 14le does not preclude the landlord from seeking eviction of more than one premises provided he establishes the need
Similar are the provisions in allied Sections 14 C and 14 D
It will be thus seen that Sections 14 B to 14 D are markedly different from Section 141e
Notwithstanding these two independent provisions with specified rights to landlords in general and the classified landlords Counsel for the tenants argued that Section 14le is the weapon of defence for the tenant even against the applications under Sections 14 B or 14 C or 14 D
The tenant is entitled to leave to contest the application by disclosing such facts in his affidavit which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction under Section 14le
This contention is sought to be supported first by the retention of sub section 376 5 of Section 25 B without any amendment second absence of amendment to SeCtion 25C2
It was also contended that sub sections 4  5 of Section 25 B are a composite scheme and since that scheme has been left untouched the tenant s right thereunder cannot be denied
The submission if taken to logical conclusion leads to obvious anomaly which will be indicated presently
But before we do that it will be necessary to deal with one other contention
Sub section 1 of Section 25 B provides that every application for the recovery of possession of any premises belonging to persons referred to in sub section 1 of Section 25 B shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this Section meaning thereby entire Section 25 B
It was also the submission of Dr Chitale counsel for one of the tenants in these cases
Mr Krishna Moorthy Iyer counsel for the Union of India however argued that the procedure contemplated under sub section 5 of Section 25 B need not be followed by the Controller with regard to applications filed under Sections 14 B to 14 D According to counsel when the tenant is duly served of the application filed under Sections 14 B 14 C or 14 D he has no right to contest the application unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller
It is said that sub section 4 itself authorises the Controller to refuse leave if he is satisfied that the grounds set out in the affidavit of the tenant would not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction
We do not think that this contention could be accepted
Indeed sub section 4 itself provides that the tenant has to obtain leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided which in the context means as provided under sub section 5 the meaning and scope of which will be presently considered
This is the only sub section under which the Controller could give leave to the tenant to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises
The argument that the absence of amendments to sub sections 4 and 5 of Section 25 B preserves the tenant s right to contest the application of even a classified landlord on the grounds specified under section 14le would be basically faulty
If such argument is available in respect of sub sections 4 and 5 of Section 25 B it must be equally available to sub section 2 of Section 25 B There is also no corresponding amendment to the summons to be issued under subsection 2 and the form specified in the Third Schedule after the introduction of Section 14 B to 14 D Third Schedule is in these terms 377 The Third Schedule Form of Summons in a case where recovery of possession of Premises is Prayed for on the ground of bona fide requirement or under Section 14 A
To Name description and place of residence of the tenant Whereas Shri _________________________________has filed an application a copy of which is annexed for your eviction from here insert the particulars of the premises on the ground specified in clause e of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 14 or under Section 14 A You are hereby summoned to appear before the Controller within fifteen days of the service hereof and to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the application for eviction on the ground aforesaid in default whereof the applicant will be entitled at any time after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days to obtain an order for your eviction from the said premises
Leave to appear and contest the application may be obtained or an application to the Controller supported by an affidavit as if referred to in sub section 5 of Section 25 B Given under my hand and seal
This_________________ day of_____________________ 19_______ Controller This form specified in the Third Schedule refers only to applications filed under Section 14le or under Section14A
Does it mean that the unamended form should be used to issue notice to the tenant even in case where application for eviction is not made under Section 14le or 14 A Is the tenant entitled to claim that he must receive the notice in the unamended form only since there is no corresponding amendment to the form after introduction of Sections 14 B to 14 D A wooden reading may furnish him positive answers but it would be ridiculous
When an application is filed under Section 14 B a copy of the application should be sent to the tenant by making necessary amendment to the prescribed form and omitting the other 378 references which are not relevant
If the application is filed under Section 14 B the summons should state that the application is filed under Section 14 B and not under Section 14le or 14 A Likewise if the applications are under Sections 14 C to 14 D the summons should state accordingly
That would indicate the scope of the defence of the tenant for obtaining leave referred to in sub section 5 of Section 25 B
Under sub section 5 the tenant could contest the application by obtaining leave with reference to the particular claim in the application of the landlord depending upon whether it is under Section 14 A 14 B 14 C or 14 D or under Section 14le
The tenant can not be allowed to take up defence under Section 14le as against an application under Section 14 B There cannot be any defence unconnected with or unrelated to the claim or right of the plaintiff or applicant
That would be against our jurisprudence
It is unlikely that the Legislature intended the result for which the counsel for the tenant contended
It will be a mechanical interpretation of the enactment defeating its purpose
Such an interpretation has never found favour with the Courts which have always adopted a purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes
Section 14 B and other allied provisions ought to receive a purposeful construction and subsection 5 of Section 25 B should be so construed as to implement the object and purpose of Section 14 B to 14 D
It is the duty of the Court to give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section 14 B to 14 D True it is not permissible to read words in a statute which are not there but where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted or adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meanings it is permissible to supply the words Craies Statute Law 7th Edition p 109
Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores vs B Mohan Lal Sowcar   at 524 25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful
An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute
See Sirajul Haq Khan  Ors
vs The Sunni Central Board of Waqf  at 1299
The tenant of course is entitled to raise all relevant contentions as against the claim of the classified landlords
The fact that there is no 379 reference to the word bona fide requirement in sections 14 B to 14 D does not absolve the landlord from proving that his requirement is bona fide or the tenant from showing that it is not bona fide
In fact every claim for eviction of a tenant must be a bona fide one
There is also enough indication in support of this construction from the title of Section 25B which states special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement
It was next urged that sub section 6 of Section 14 is also attracted to applications under Section 14 B to 14 D
This contention overlooks the express wordings of sub section 6
It refers to premises acquired by transfer and thereby the transferee becoming the landlord
Such a landlord cannot bring an action for eviction of tenant in possession of the acquired premises within a period of five years from the date of acquisition
After five years such a landlord can ask for eviction of the tenant under section 14ie
This is indeed as we said earlier a protection to the tenant
The original landlord who cannot evict the tenant since he has got many houses under his occupation cannot use the device by transferring one of the houses to a third party who could easily evict such a tenant
The tenant in occupation of the transferred premises gets a protection from eviction for a minimum period of five years
Section 14 B and other allied provisions refer to the premises let out and not acquired by transfer
One may become an owner of the premises by transfer but the tenant in occupation of the transferred property cannot be evicted by resorting to sections 14 B to 14 D
If the transferee wants to evict the tenant of such premises he must take action only under Section 14le
Equally sub section 7 of Section 14 has no application to eviction under Sections 14 B to 14 D Nor the amended provisions under Section 25c2 would be attracted since it applies exclusively to tenants of the landlords covered under Section 14 A
But that does not mean that the tenants covered under Sections 14 B to 14 D are not entitled to any time for surrendering possession of the premises
it is always left to the Controller who is a quasi judicial authority to exercise his discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case
The Controller must exercise his judicial discretion in every case of eviction and grant a reasonable time to the tenant
There is one other aspect which requires elucidation
In Busching Schmitz Private Limited vs P T Meighani and Anr  this Court while dealing with the scope of Section 14 A and the corresponding right of the tenant to resist the application thereunder has inter alia observed that sub section 5 of Section 25 B cannot be equated with Order 37 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The 380 social setting demanding summary proceeding the nature of the subject matter and above all the legislative diction which has been deliberately designed differ in the two provisions
The Controller s power to give leave to contest the application filed under Section 14le or Section 14 A is cribbed by the condition that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in the respective sections
Needless to state therefore if an application is filed under Section 14 B or 14 C or 14 D the tenant s right to contest the application is narrowed down and is restricted to the parameters of the respective sections
He cannot widen the scope of his defence by relying upon Section 14le
We find nothing contrary to our view in Precision Steel  Engineering Works and Anr
vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal  Subsection 5 of Section 25 is self contained and Order 37 Rule 3 CPC has no part to play there
We therefore reiterate the views expressed in Basching Schmitz Private Limited case
The tenant who is petitioner in SLP No 1142590 has suffered an order of eviction which has been confirmed by the High Court in revision
It is found that his landlord is living in a rented house and is paying a rent of Rs2000 pm and he requires the premises for himself and the members of his family
We concur with the view taken by the Controller as affirmed by the High Court
The landlord cannot be denied possession of his own premises under Section 14 B when he is residing in a rented premises
Before parting with the case we have to deal with one other contention which has been specifically raised by Mr Sanghi
The counsel argued that the concerned landlord has taken voluntary retirement long earlier and he has become a part of the society just like any other landlord and Section 14 B was not intended to confer such landlord the special right to recover immediate possession of the premises
Obvious answer to this contention is found in Section 14 B1 which states that the persons who have already retired may within one year from the date of their release or retirement from such Armed Forces or within a period of one year from the date of introduction of Section 14 B whichever is later apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of their premises
That is the legislative wisdom
In this view of the matter the appeals stand disposed without an order as to costs
DRL Appeals disposed of


Summary:
The petitioners who were Central Government employees on their absorption in a Central Public Sector Undertaking retired from Central Government service on different dates prior to 3131979 and commuted their original pension for a lump sum as permissible under the Civil Service Pension Rules 1972
The Central Government issued OM dated 1321976 enabling an officer who commuted a portion of his pension to be eligible for relief and ad hoc reliefs on the full amount of his original pension but persons who got themselves absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings were not eligible to the said benefits
Taking noteof the erosion in the value of the rupee the Government by OM dated 2551979 introduced the Liberalised Pension Formula benefit of which by this Court s decision in DS Nakara s case was extended to all Central Government pensioners irrespective of the dates of their retirement
In order to implement the said decision the Government issued OM dated 22101983 but the benefit was not given to those persons who got them selves absorbed in Central Public Sector Undertakings and receivedopted to receive commuted raise of 13rd of pension as well as 357 terminal benefits equal to the commuted value of the balance amount of pension left after such commutation
The petitioners challenged the validity of the aforesaid OMs
dated 1321976 and 22101983 and contended that for the purposes of grant of the full benefit of relief or ad hoc relief the Rules do not make any distinction between an officer who has sought commutation of a portion of his original pension and one who has not sought any such commutation and as the petitioners who opted for commutation of their original pension in accordance with the Rules were being arbitrarily and without just and reasonable cause deprived of the relief the aforesaid Office Memoranda were vitiated by an inherent discrimination and were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
The facts of the appeal were identical to those of the petitions except that the appellant came before this Court in appeal against the order of the High Court which dismissed his writ petition
On the question whether the petitionersappellants fell in the category of Central Government pensioners for the purpose of entitlement to the benefit of the Liberalised Pension Formula or did they fall in a different class altogether and were not entitled to get any such benefit Dismissing the writ petitions and the appeal this Court HELD 1 Clause 5 of OM dated 2210 1983 is clear that such Central Government employees who got themselves absorbed under Central Public Sector Undertakings prior to 141979 and opted to receive commuted raise for 13rd of pension as well as terminal benefit equal to the commuted value of the balance amount of pension were not entitled to any benefit as they were not Central Government Pensioners as on 14 1979
362B C 2Commutation brings about certain advantages
The person who commutes his pension gets a lump sum which ordinarily he would have received in the course of his spread over period subject to his continuing to live The two advantages of the commutation are the availability of a lump sum and the risk factor
The allowance of Family Pension to such person does not however make them entitled to get any benefit that is given to the pensioners on account of Liberalised Pension Rules taking note of the fallen value of the rupee
362F G 363A B 31 In the instant case the petitioners had not only got 13rd of 358 their pension commuted but exercised the option of getting the entire pension commuted and in lieu thereof got a lump sum
Such persons cannot fall in the category of Central Government pensioners for the purposes of getting benefit of the Liberalised Pension Rules which can be made applicable only to Central Government pensioners
362G H 363A 32 The petitioners fell in a different class altogether and were not entitled to claim any benefit granted to the Central Government Pensioners
After getting a lump sum in lieu of entire pension they did not fall in the class of Central Government pensioners and were not entitled to any benefit granted to such pensioners
The case of the Central Government pensioners who got their 13rd pension commuted also fail in a different class inasmuch as they got 23rd pension and after 15 years of such commutation or having attained the age of 70 years whichever was later they became entitled to full pension
363C D Common Cause a Registered Society  Ors
vs Union of India   distinguished
DS Nakara  Ors
vs Union of India   referred to