IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6608 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 02, 2009 Narinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Union of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. H.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.3 and 4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 3.5.2006 conveyed with letter dated 11.5.2006, placed on record as Annexure P-9. Under the impugned order, claim of the petitioner for grant of Dearness Allowance on pension has been declined by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner joined the Indian Army on 14.2.1970 and was discharged on 1.6.1988. On CWP No.6608 of 2007 [2] completion of his term of appointment, the petitioner had been drawing his Army pension from respondent No.2 i.e. the Defence Pension Disbursement Officer, Batala. The petitioner was re-employed on 14.12.1995 in the Department of Revenue, Government of Punjab, on the post of Patwari. Appointment of the petitioner was made in the Pay Scale of 950-1800 (with initial start of Rs.1,000/- per month). The petitioner has not been given Dearness Allowance on his pension drawn from Indian Army vide the impugned order, Annexure P-9. Reason assigned for not allowing Dearness Allowance to the petitioner is that the petitioner had not joined at the minimum Pay Scale at the time of his re-employment. This is evident from Para 4 and 5 of impugned order, Annexure P-9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court dated 1.9.2008 in Civil Writ Petition No.7245 of 2007 (Ex-Naik Jang Masih vs. Union of India & Others). Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 states that there is no material available to indicate that the petitioner had joined at the minimum of Pay Scale, therefore, Dearness Allowance is not payable to the petitioner by the Indian Army on the pension of petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel and CWP No.6608 of 2007 [3] considered the issue. Annexure P-4 is the certificate issued by the re-employer/ authority for the release of Dearness Relief to defence pensioner. It has been certified in certificate, Annexure P-4, dated 13.12.2000 to the following effect:- “4) The reemployed Pensioner retired from a Civil or Military Post in this Central Government and was holding a post not included in classified as Group „A‟ or a post below the rank of Commissioned Officers in the Armed Forces. He has not availed any extra increment in lieu of his military service.” Perusal of Annexure P-4 makes it clear that the petitioner had indeed joined at the minimum of the Pay Scale permissible for the post of Patwari as it has been certified that he has not availed any extra increment for the military service. This very issue has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.7245 of 2007 (Ex-Naik Jang Masih vs. Union of India & Others) decided on 1.9.2008. The relevant portion is extracted as under:- “On the other hand, Standing counsel for Union of India argued that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed, as on his re-employment w.e.f. 2.1.1989 in the rank of Constables, he had been placed in initial start of Rs.420/- in the pay scale of Rs.400- 600/-, which cannot be said to be the minimum of the pay scale. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner had concealed the fact of his re-employment and, therefore, he is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 conceded before the Court that the petitioner, on his re- employment as Constable, was placed at the initial start of Rs.420/- in the pay scale of Rs.400-600/-, by ignoring his previous army service, as all the Constables had been granted the same initial start and it was for all purposes the minimum of the pay scale. CWP No.6608 of 2007 [4] It is evident that the initial start of Rs.420/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.400-600 was applicable to all Constables of Telecommunication Wing of the Punjab Police (respondent No.4) including Ex- servicemen and the petitioner was not granted any increment on account of his previous army service. This factual position is borne out from a bare reading of Annexure P.4, the stand of respondent No.4 in their written statement and at the time of arguments. In fact, it has been admitted that the Punjab Government vide Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules 1988) issued vide notification dated 20.1.1989, while providing for revision of pay scale of various categories of Personnels, had revised the pay scale of all Constables in the Police Department from Rs.400-600/- with initial start of Rs.420/- to Rs.900-1800/- with initial start of Rs.1,000/-, hence establishing that the minimum of the pay scale always started with one increment. Therefore, the stand of the respondent-Union of India that the petitioner was not placed in the minimum of pay scale, on his re-employment, is not sustainable. As a sequel, it is held that the petitioner was placed in the minimum of pay scale on his re-employment w.e.f. 2.11.1989. A bare reading of para 3(a) of Instructions dated 2.7.1999 (Annexure P.2) reveals that recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission were accepted and it was provided that PBORs Pensioners like the petitioner, were entitled to be paid Dearness Relief on their army pension at the rates applicable from time to time provided they were placed in the minimum of the pay scale of the post, on which they were re-employed i.e. no benefit of their previous army service was granted while fixing their pay. Learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India has more or less conceded that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of Dearness Relief under the Instructions dated 2.7.1999 once this Court has held that the petitioner was, in fact, re-employed w.e.f. 2.1.1989 in the minimum of the pay scale. Thus, we hold that the petitioner fulfils the laid down criterion and hence is entitled to the grant of Dearness Relief in terms of the instructions dated 2.7.1999 (Annexure P/2) w.e.f. 18.7.1997, the date, the instructions were enforced.” In view of the above, I find the impugned action of the respondents to be wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and unjustified. It is held that the petitioner had joined as Patwari at the minimum of the Pay Scale and therefore, he would be entitled to payment of Dearness Allowance on pension CWP No.6608 of 2007 [5] payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2, with effect from 18.7.1997 till the date of retirement of the petitioner. The petition is allowed. Annexure P-9 is quashed. Dearness Allowance be released within 90 days of receipt of certified copy of the order. (AJAI LAMBA) February 02, 2009 JUDGE avin