IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3670 of 2011 along with CWP Nos. 3761 of 2011 and 1794 of 2007. Decided on: 1st June, 2011. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No. 3670 of 2011 Kishan Dass vs. Union of India and ors. 2. CWP No. 3761 of 2011 Ram Nath vs. Union of India and ors. 3. CWP No. 1794 of 2007. Atma Ram vs. Union of India and ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma,, Judge. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate in all the petitions. For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) These writ petitions are filed with identical prayers, hence one such set of prayers is extracted below: “ A). To declare the act of reducing the benefit accruable to the petitioner after superannuation as envisaged under ITBP Medical Assistance Scheme for Pensioners Rule 1996 vide Annexure P-1, as an arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal act hence quash and set aside the decision Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 of the Governing Body. B) To declare the act of respondent illegal because it is against the principal of natural justice being passed against settled law of lands that no decision which has civil consequences as far as persons concerned can be taken against the person at his back. C). To declare the act of respondents of amending the 1996 Rules vide Annexure P-5 as illegal on the ground that respondents have no such power to carry out said amendment and in alternative in case this Hon’ble Court is pleased to hold that respondents have power to carry out said amendment and in alternative in case this 2 Hon’ble Court is pleased to hold that respondents have power to carry out such amendment then direct the respondents to apply said amendments prospectively to person who became member of scheme after said amendment and declare that this amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to person like petitioner by holding its retrospectively operation as bad in law. D). To direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner Rs.12,00/- per annum for a period of 20 years as envisaged in 1996 Rules without any deviation from the Rules and to pay to the petitioner the arrears as are due to the petitioner with interest @12% per annum from the date when it was payable to the petitioner.” 2. According to the petitioner, the issue is squarely covered by a common judgment dated 22.2.2011 in CWP No. 803 of 2005, titled Panchi Ram versus Union of India and others along with other connected matters, decided by this Court. It is also submitted that the judgment has become final. The following reliefs are granted in the judgment referred to above:- i). The amendment carried out by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 15.12.2004 is quashed and set aside. The decisio0n of the respondents to close the scheme with effect from 1.11.29007 is also declared illegal. ii). Respondents are directed to revive the original scheme, which came into force with effect from 1.8.1996 and the respondents are further directed to consider providing grant-in-aid towards the corpus till new scheme is framed to mitigate the hardship of the personnel already serving and retired from the I.T.B.P. iii). Respondents shall pay to the petitioners and similarly situate persons after the Central Government considers increasing the corpus by providing grant-in-aid to release Rs.12,000/- per annum, as per the original scheme, which came into force with effect from 1.8.1996. 3. In case, the petitioners are also similarly situate and in case the judgment referred to have has become final, similar treatment shall be extended to the petitioners herein also within a period four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and a 3 copy of the judgment referred to above, by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent/competent authority. 4. In view of the disposal of main petitions, all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge 1st June, 2011. (lsp/jai)