IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.574 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 05, 2011 Union of India and Ors. …Appellants Versus No.7081147 Ex. CFN Narinjan Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel, for the appellants. ***** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 11.08.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent would be entitled to service element of his pension with effect from the date when it was discontinued i.e. 03.08.2003. Under the garb of discontinuation of disability element of pension on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Re-Survey of Medical Board that the disability of the petitioner had ceased to exist and the service element of pension has also been discontinued from 03.08.2003. The learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner-respondent would be entitled to at least service element of pension. In respect of disability pension the appellants were directed to examine whether the disability pension granted to the writ petitioner- respondent was at the old rate. The pension at the revised rate was ordered to be paid, if it was found that the writ petitioner-respondent was entitled to the same. 2. We have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length and are of the view that the appeal is wholly without merit and is a frivolous piece of litigation. The matter is squarely covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of 'Amarjit Singh v. Union of India' (P-10). The aforesaid LPA No.574 of 2011 (O&M) matter was decided in CWP No.12311 of 1996 on 27.02.1997. The Division Bench has held that a Sepoy, who had 100% disability when he was discharged from military service, was paid disability element pension as well as service element of pension. In the last para of the judgment, the Division Bench makes a reference to Rule 173 and 186(1) of the Military Service Regulations and proceeds to hold as under: - “Rule 173 of the Rules states that unless otherwise specifically provided, disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalided out of service on account of a disability and it is assessed at 20% or over. Rule 186(1) states that in individual who is invalided out of service with an disability when assessed at below 20% shall be entitled to service element only. In 1986 when petitioner's disability was assessed at below 20% be ceased to have any right to get disability element of pension but is entitled to service element only. As stated earlier that disability element of pension was Rs.25/- and the service element of pension paid to him was Rs.13/- and 5 annas. As per the present orders issued by Central Govt. & minimum service pension payable to an ex- military personal is Rs.375/-. Since the service element of pension is to continue till death of the ex-serviceman we are of the view that petitioner should be paid the minimum service element of the pension, namely Rs.375/- from the date on which he was found disentitled to get the disability element of pension. In this view respondents are to disburse pension (service element) to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.375/- from 5.3.1986. Arrears due till date must be qualified and disbursed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the arrears are not disbursed within the said period of three months, the entire arrears will carry interest at the rate of 12% 2 LPA No.574 of 2011 (O&M) from the date of expiry of three months till the date of payment. Respondents should regularly pay pension to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.375/- every month without any break.” 4. It is thus evident that the disability in the case of Amarjeet Singh was found to be less than 20% in 1996 and he ceased to have any right to get disability element of pension. However, he was held entitled to service element of pension only which was to continue till death of the ex-serviceman. Accordingly, learned Single Judge has applied the aforesaid principle to the facts of the case in hand and held that the writ petitioner-respondent would be entitled to the service element of pension. 5. There is another aspect of the matter because the instant appeal is an illustration of frivolous litigation initiated at the instance of Union of India and its Officers. The appellant-Union of India has framed the National Litigation Policy which has been reported as (2010) 6 SCC J-17. The aforesaid policy has been completely overlooked by the appellants. In Paragraph VI, the issue of filing of appeal has been dealt with. In accordance with Item D, the following provision has been made:- “VI. Filing of appeals (A) to (C) x x x x (D) In service matters, no appeal will be filed in cases where:- (a) the matter pertains to an individual grievance without any major repercussion; (b) the matter pertains to a case of pension or retirement benefits without involving any principle and without setting any precedent or financial implications.” (emphasis added) It is obvious that no appeal is to be filed in cases where the matters pertain to pension or retiral benefits, provided it does not involve any principle or 3 LPA No.574 of 2011 (O&M) financial implications. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would show that the impugned judgment was based on a Division Bench judgment (supra). It is, thus, wholly unwarranted for the appellants to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court once the matter stands already decided in respect of the issues concerning computation of disability element of pension. If the disability is less than 50% then the element of disability has to be rounded of to 50% provided it is over 20%. Accordingly, we find that the appeal is frivolous and misuse of the process of the Court. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed and we also saddle the appellant with cost which is assessed to Rs.5000/- for filing a frivolous appeal. The said amount be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority. 7. The appeal having been dismissed on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of huge delay of 557 days in filing of the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) April 05, 2011 JUDGE Rajan 4