- (1.) THE petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Air Force on 31 -12-19:58. After 25 years of service in various assignments, he was promoted as Group Captain. He was selected for deputation from the Air force to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for two years. After completion of the period of deputation he was offered permanent absorption - which he accepted with effect from 21-5-1986. The petitioner's premature retirement on permanent absorption was communicated by an order dated 27-5-1986. It is contended that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence by letter dated 19-12-1986 stated that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Departments letter dated 17-3-1986. The said letter indicated that premature retirement would not entail forfeiture of service for the purpose of retirement terminal benefits. The letter also did offer an option to receive a lump sum amount in lieu of monthly pro rata pension. The petitioner had accordingly exercised pensionary option and was sanctioned the same by a letter dated 1. 5-4-1987 indicating a monthly pension of Rs. 1440 and authorising payment of a capitalised, sum of Rs. 2. 23. 776/ -. The petitioner was also. sauctioned a retirement gratuity of Rs. 50. 000/ -. However, pursuant to recommendations of the fourth Central Pay Commission regarding pensionary benefits and as decided by the ministry of Defence - a corrigendum dated 18-12-1987 was issued amending the monthly pension to Rs. 2069/- and an additional capitalised sum of Rs. 97,747/- and an additional retirement gratuity of Rs. 27,688/ -.
(2.) IT is the petitioner's contention that on recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission regarding pensionary benefits, that with effect from 1-1-1996 pension of all armed forces pensioners, irrespective of the date of their retirement, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay of the rank held by the pensioner, introduced from 1-1-1996. This was implemented along with restoration of 43% of compounded pension after 15 years by orders dated 28-5-2002 and 28-7-2002, respectively. However, the pension sanctioning authority had reckoned the actual service of 27. 5 years alone without adding the weightage of 7 years in computing the revised pension payable to the petitioner. In the result the revised pension was pegged at Rs. 7255/- instead of Rs. 8550/ -.
(3.) THE petitioner contends that " (a) weightage is an entitlement earned by virtue of past service of an officer, once he completes 20 years of service. This cannot be deprived except in accordance with the Pension Regulations. (b) Denying weightage on account of absorption into a public sector undertaking while allowing it in respect of other officers in the same stream who take premature retirement for personal reasons, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (c) So is the case of an officer who retires prematurely and later joins the services of a private sector undertaking, being allowed weightage. (d) The counsel for the petitioner would assert that the clear declaration by the respondents that his premature retirement would not entail forfeiture of service for the purpose of retirement benefit was unilaterally modified by promulgating that the petitioner would be denied of 17% of the pension earned by him. Nor was the petitioner given the option of going back to the parent cadre, since all connections with the Government were severed on his release for appointment in an enterprise". ;