IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.246 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.02.2011 Union of India and Ors. … Appellants Versus JC 215054 H Ex-(Hon. Lt/Capt.) Sardara Singh … Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Dr. Amarpreet Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 28.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to disability pension. It has come on record that the writ petitioner-respondent has joined as a Sepoy on 29.10.1969. He was found medically fit. He, however, suffered heart disease known as Ischaemic Heart Disease (IHD) while he was in active service. His medical category was down graded to BEE(T) and further to BEE(P). He was brought before the Invaliding Medical Board at Military Hospital, Dimapur where his disability was assessed at 30%. His disease was held to be aggravated by stress and strain of military service. Accordingly, he retired from Army on 31.08.1997 after rendering 28 years’ service. The respondent-petitioner has been granted the disability element @ 30% disability. He succeeded before the learned Single Judge in claiming that his disability has been wrongly calculated in the rank of junior Commissioned Officer and not in the rank of Commissioned Officer and that the computation of disability element of pension has not been made in accordance with the instructions dated 31.01.2001. 2. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on Regulation 183(2) of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 (Part-I) (for brevity ‘the Regulation’) concerning the disability element. Under this Regulation, an honorary Commissioned Officer is entitled to the pension @ Rs.2,600/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The learned Single Judge also granted the benefit of letter dated 31.01.2001 which provides for computation of disability element if it is less than 50% and rounded up to 50% and proceeded to observe as under: “Letter dated 31.01.2001 issued by the Govt. of India further provides the computation of disability element in the following manner: - Less than 50 50 Between 50 and 75 75 Between 76 and 100 100 This controversy has been settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.9979 of 2005 decided on 17.08.2006 titled as Nb. Subedar Ravinder Kumar Vs. Union of India and others followed in CWP No.16263 of 2006 decided on 17.03.2009. In the aforesaid judgment the honorary commissioned officer was granted the pension in accordance with Regulation 183(2) and also the computation of disability element in terms of letter dated 31.01.2009. Learned counsel for respondents has also agreed that the controversy in the present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment. This petition is, accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to pension payable to the Honorary Commissioned Officer at the time of his retirement. The disability element shall also be computed @ 50%. The pensionary benefits of the petitioner shall be accordingly, released restricting the arrears to three years.” 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the Union of India and have perused the paper book with her able assistance. 4. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that this appeal is an illustration of unnecessary litigation initiated at the instance of Union of India. We find that the appellants have failed to keep in view the latest National Litigation Policy as has been reported in (2010) 6 SCC J-17. 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 maters, 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) 5. 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 financial implications. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would show that it was based on the Regulation 183(2) and the letter was issued by the appellants on 31.01.2001. 6. 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 both the issues concerning computation of disability element of pension. Firstly, under Regulation 183(2) an honorary Commissioned Officer is entitled to pension @ Rs.2,600/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.1986 if the disability is less than 50% and that the element disability has to be rounded up to 50% if it is over 20%. Moreover, the matter is covered by the judgment in Nb. Subedar Ravinder Kumar’s case (supra). Accordingly, we find that the appeal is frivolous and a misuse of the process of the Court. 7. In view of above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed being devoid of merit. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE FEBRUARY 14, 2011 ( T.P.S. MANN) rajan JUDGE