Sr. No. Date ai + % Orders IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.fC) 6937/2003 LT.COL.KARAN JANG THAPA Petitioner Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate. UOI versus Respondent Through; Mr. Rajiv Shakdhar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MEL JUSTICE B.A. KHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR ORDER 24.05.2005 Petitioner superannuated from Army as Lt. Col. on 31" July, 1995 and v/as granted re-employmenton 18"' October, 1995. Petitioner'sre-employmentwas extended and extended employment was to expire on T' July, 2000 on attaining 56 years of age under prevalent rules at that time. It appearsthat respondentissueda memorandumdated 13"' May, 1998 granting two years' extension in the retirement age of its employees. This memorandum was followed by decision of Ministry of Defence granting the benefit of extension in retirement age firom 56 to 58 years to Armed Force personnel*. This memorandum, howevei", fixed a cut of date providing ihat tlie extension v/ould be applicable to those who have been employed in service after the date of the issue of memorandum. SACHKHANDPRINTERS 6937/2m3 Pagel of 4 H.C.D.-I (a) Continuation Sfieet Sf. No. Orders Some other persons who hsJ been re-employed prior to notification questioned this fixation of the cut of date in writ petition before this Court. The writ petition of those similarlysituatedpersons was allowed videorder dated 23^^^ January, 2(X)2 v/hereby a mandamus was issued to respondents to retain such persons up to 58 years of age. Pursuant thereto petitioneralso filed a writ j^tition as had been filed by similarly situated other persons. Petitioners writ was allowed by order dated 23"^ January,2002 and petitioner wasto be recalled in service. However, the petitioner'sletterof re-employmentdated 6*^ June, 2002 was ^sted on 6* July, 2002 and his terms of re-employment expired on I®' July, 2(X)2. Thus, petitioner was though recalled in cognizance to the orders by this Court in his writpetitionfor re-employment. But he could not takebenefitof the full extension of two years of 58 years of age as he attained 58 years of age on 1"^ July,2002,thoughorderrecallinghimdated 6'^ June,2(X)2 was issued. It seems that some otiier similarly situated pstitioners also faced a similarsituation. Therefore,petitionerandother similarlyplacedpetitionersfiled writ petitionsin the secondround andthepresentpetitionisoneof tho^ writpetitions. A Division Bench of this Court had disused of other identical writ petitionsof some of similarlysituatedre-employedofficers. Oneof itsjudgmentis dated 23"^ November,2004passedin Writ Petition No.1017/2002 granting the writ Pcrr,? rfrl Sz\ No. Date i Orders TT Ipetitionerin that case the back benefitsfor the periodfrom his exit on reckoningof his retirementage at 56 to the date of expiry after 58 years of age pursuant to memorandumdated 13'^May, 2002. Thisjudgment provided: - "In the light of tlie aforesaidobservations and directions, it is ordered that the petitionersho-ein would be entitledto pay and allowancesfor the periodthey were kept out of serviceby tlie respondents,namely, from the dateofcompletion of56 years up to the dateof tlieirrejoining. The said period shall alsobecountedfor the purposeof theirpension and all otlierconsequentialbenefits. The writ psetitions standallowedtotheaforesaidextentleavingthe parliestobeartheirown cost." Petitioner'scase is that his case is also coveredby tliejudgmentas his circumstancesare similaras of other wit petitionersand he is therefore,entitled to similar benefits. 1 I I He has filed this applicationfor seeking similarrelief and wants the I I disposalofhis writpetitionin tenns of the judgment of tlie DivisionBenchof tliis 1 ' jCourtdated23*^ November,2004and in v.'ritpetitionno.6724/2004. A notice of this application was accepted by Lt. Col. K.M. Rai appeEringlor respondentson 4*^ May, 2005. He had soughtadjournmenton that date to examine whether petitioner'scase was covered by the judgmentin Writ Petition No.6/24/2004,Lt. Col. SPS Rekhi Vs. UOI. No reply has been filed to this applicationnorhas anythingbeen pointedout to us to show that petitioner'scase v/as differentand was not coveredby theDivisionBenchjudgmentdated 23^*^ November, 2(X)4passed in Lt. Col.Rekhi's case. SACHKHANDPRSMTERg'tfifflS-)6937/2m3 • raue^oiH smo. f Orders We have also gone through the judgment and we find that petitioner's case is squarelycovered b^' it. Writ petition is accordinglyrequired to be disposed of in tenns of this judgment. Respondents are, therefore, directed to pay the salary and allowances to the petitioner from I®* July, 2(XX) to 1" July, 2002 - tlie period during which he remained out of service and to which he was otlierwise entitled to remain in service because of the extension of two years' retirement age. Accordingly, respondents are directed to comply with this order and pass appropriate orders v/itliin four months from receipt of tliis order. MAY 24,2005 'AA' W.P.<C) 6937/2003 ft ANILKUMAIl,J Page 4 of 4 SACHKHAND PRINTERS 01/05