C.M. No. 4957 of 2010 in/and -1- LPA No. 254 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. C.M. No. 4957 of 2010 in/and LPA No. 254 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 22.12.2010 Union of India & others -----Appellants Versus No. 6385607 Ex. NK Rajbir Singh ---Respondent 2. C.M. No.4958 of 2010 in/and LPA No. 189 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & others -----Appellants Versus No. 14605105 Ex. NK (TS) Shamsher Singh ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. These two appeals at the instance of Union of India and its officers under Clause X of the Letters Patent have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2009. The learned Single Judge has placed heavy reliance on an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 67 of 2007 decided on 12.02.2008 (Paramjit Singh v. Union of India). In fact against the judgment dated 28.05.2009, LPA No. 829 was filed and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2010. 2. Ms. Ranjana Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any distinction between the facts of the cases in hand and those of the one decided by LPA No. 829 of 2010. C.M. No. 4957 of 2010 in/and -2- LPA No. 254 of 2010 (O&M) Ms. Shahi has made an attempt to highlight that there are various classifications of service whether disability pension could be granted or not. However, no such classification is discernible from the perusal of para nos. 7.2 and 8 of the Government decision and instructions dated 31.1.2001. Her reliance on the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission is obviously misplaced because the recommendation cannot be accepted unless those are approved by the Government. Therefore, no interference would be warranted. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent has insisted that the judgment rendered in LPA No. 829 of 2010 (A-1) is on the same line and therefore, is fully applicable as it has upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered on 28.05.2009. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that LPA No. 829 of 2010 has already been dismissed upholding the judgment dated 28.05.2009 and therefore, it will not be possible to take any different view than the one taken in LPA No. 829 of 2010. The appeals are wholly without merit. 5. Accordingly, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed. 6. Civil Misc. Applications stand disposed of. 7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE December 22, 2010 Atul