LPA No.1129 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1129 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2011 Union of India … Appellant Versus No.671086 Ex. SGT Rajender Kumar Tanwar … Respondents ***** 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: Ms. Ranjana Shahi. Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. RA Sehoran, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 11.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-respondent will be entitled to 50% disability pension on the basis of letter dated 31.01.2001 referred by the learned Single Judge in the order. According to the aforesaid letter, the Fifth Central Pay Commission has recommended the rounding off of disability pension to 50%, if it is 20% or more but less than 50% and likewise rounding off for other categories. The aforesaid question has already been considered by this Division Bench in LPA No.189 of 2010 and LPA No.246 of 2011. According to the finding recorded, we do not wish to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in this case. LPA No.1129 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 2. 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) 3. 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 issued by the appellants on 31.01.2001. We hope and trust that appellant would keep in view the aforesaid policy before filing any appeal. 4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 5. In view of the fact that the appeal is dismissed, we do not wish to pass any order on the application for condonation of delay in filing/refilling of the appeal. ( M.M. KUMAR ) LPA No.1129 of 2010 (O&M) -3- JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 ( T.P.S. MANN) rajan JUDGE