UNION OF INDIA Vs. R C JAM
LAWS(DLH)-1983-12-11
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on December 08,1983

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
R.C.JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jagdish Chandra,J. - (1.)This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 28, 1980 of the learned Single Judge, B. N. Kirpal J. whereby the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition of respondent R.C.Jain, quashed the decision of the appellant Union of India contained in the impugned letter dated November 10, 1976 and directed the Union of India, within three months of the receipt of his judgment, to calculate and pay pensionary and other benefits which may be due to R.C. Jain, except those benefits which have already been allowed to him, on the basis that he was in service as a seaman with effect from August 22, 1959. R. C. Jain was also allowed costs of the writ petition.
(2.)R. C. Jain was initially enrolled as Artificer Apprentice on August 22, 1959 in the Indian Navy at Indian Naval Ship Shivaji Lonavela, Poona. He worked as a trainee in that capacity uptil 23rd August, 1963. From the date of completion of his aforesaid training he was advanced to Electrical Artificer (Power) V Class with effect from August 24, 1963. Since then he was promoted to various higher ranks and as a result of the said promotions R. C. Jain came to the position of Commissioned rank of Acting Sub. Lt. (S. D. P.) on 30th September 1971 in which rank he was confirmed on 30th September, 1972. From this rank he retired from service on December, 1, 1976.
(3.)On June 1, 1976 R. C. Jain proceeded on six months leave pending retirement and during that leave period he was served with the impugned letter dated November 10, 1976 by the appellant Union of India and the stand taken therein regarding non-entitlement of the respondent for pension and gratuity as a Sailor, according to the respondent R. C. Jain, was wholly unfounded and untenable. He, accordingly, made a representation to the Naval Headquarters, Delhi on December 15, 1976 'but he did not receive any reply to his representation notwithstanding the reminder. Thus finding himself helpless he invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein he assailed the aforesaid letter dated November 10, 1976 and the act of the Union of India in not releasing to him his pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, as illegal, void, ineffective, ultra vires, unconstitutional and mala fide and thus liable to be quashed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.