IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5035 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 30, 2009 Daljit Singh Randhawa .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Union of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) It has been brought out that the petitioner while serving in Indian Army participated in IInd World War and was awarded ‘Military Cross’ in 1944 on Burma Front. Other than that, the petitioner had other achievements. The petitioner got pre-mature retirement on 27.6.1966 and is being given pension on substantive rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that gallantry award granted to the petitioner was required to be made equal to Mahavir Chakra awarded after 1947 and the discrimination between the two should be removed. Further, the allowances and monetary benefits accorded to a CWP No.5035 of 2009 [2] person who has been awarded Mahavir Chakra after 1947, be given to the petitioner. Demand made in above regards was not met by the respondents. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.11868 of 2005. Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents to take a final decision on the issues raised in the petition. The petitioner even filed a Contempt of Court Petition No.1024 of 2006. The respondents, in the meantime, gave the decision which has been placed on record as Annexure P-9. After passing of order, Annexure P-9, on 2.4.2007, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.7447 of 2007 which was, however, withdrawn by the petitioner. The present petition has been filed again directed against Order, Annexure P-9. Learned counsel, however, states that in view of the contents of Para 9 of Annexure P-9, the petitioner served a legal notice on which no decision has been taken. I have considered the issue. It is not in dispute that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition after passing of order, Annexure P-9. The writ petition was withdrawn. Para 4 of Annexure P-9 is required to be considered and when extracted reads as under:- “4. This Ministry is of the considered view that the CWP No.5035 of 2009 [3] demand for parity between these two categories in all matters cannot be agreed to. Notwithstanding the historical perspective and without discounting the devotion to duty and gallantry displaced by pre-independence war heroes, it has to be noted that the pre-independence gallantry and post independence gallantry awards were given under entirely different situations and are, therefore, not comparable. Pre-independence gallantry awards were given when the country was under colonial rule and therefore, treated as a separate category. These two categories are, therefore, treated differently and therefore, the monetary allowances, other benefits and exemptions available to the two categories may also vary. As such, the pre independence gallantry awardees cannot be equated with post independency gallantry awardees. As a corollary, since there is no linkage the demand for parity in other accruing benefits to the petitioner at par with the post independence gallantry awards winners cannot be accepted. However, revision of monetary benefits corresponding to those given to post independence awardees has been recommended to the Pay Commission without linking that to the issue of parity as such.” I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition against the decision, Annexure P-9. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. This second petition on same cause of action is not maintainable. Annexure P-9 itself is a speaking order as is evident from the above extracted portion. The relevant aspects have been considered by the respondents. A conscious decision, for given reasons, has been taken. The issue of pre independence awards and post independence has been considered. The reasons, assigned for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, cannot be termed as frivolous or irrational. No ground for judicial review of the order is made out. No ground for interference is made out in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. CWP No.5035 of 2009 [4] The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 30, 2009 JUDGE avin