- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for a declaration to the effect that Para 4 and 5 of the Pension Regulation, Part-I and Para 82 of the Pension Regulation Part-II, are against Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. A further direction has been sought to grant the petitioners arrears of their pension along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date till the date of payment. A consequential relief of quashing the order suspending the pension of the petitioners during the period they were serving the sentence has also been made.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are pensioners and after their retirement from Army as Hawaldars they were living at village Rajgarh, District Bhiwani. The petitioners had retired on 1.4.1986, 1.8.1983 and 22.2.1983 respectively. A case under Sections 302/148/397/326/506/149 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani, was registered against them. They were convicted under Sections 323/148/149 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 6.11.1993 and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and on appeal the sentence and order of conviction were upheld. They served the sentence from 16.2.1996. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were released after serving sentence on 30.4.1997 whereas petitioner No. 3 served the sentence till 16.5.1997. For the period they served their respective sentences, their pension was suspended by the respondents. The petitioners made representation on 10.12.1997 (P-2), which was replied by the respondents vide letter dated 20.1.1998 (P-4) by pointing out that in terms of Rule 82-B of the Army Pension Regulations Part-II, 1961, sanction of pension from the date of their release after serving sentence has been accorded but the pension in respect of the period the petitioners had served the sentence was not released. The action of suspending pension for the period of sentence undergone by the petitioners appears to have emanated from Para 82 of the Army Pension Regulations, which provide that pension may be suspended from the date a pensioner is sentenced till the date of his release from the jail custody. Para 82 (a) of the Regulations has been made subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.
(3.) When the matter came up for motion hearing on 5.10.1999, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order :- "Present: Mr. Surender Gandhi, Advocate, for Mr. Sanjay Vasisth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Third time, case is coming up for preliminary hearing to enable learned counsel to examine law in support of challenge to vires of the pension regulations. This time, he has put in written request for adjournment. Mr. Surender Gandhi, Advocate, is appearing on behalf of Mr. Vasishth, Advocate. We find no justification for granting repeated adjournments. In the interest of justice, however, we adjourn the case sine die, with liberty to the petitioner to apply for re-listing and preliminary hearing as and when he finds it convenient. Sd/- (Arun B. Saharya) Chief Justice Sd/- (V.K. Bali) October 5, 1999 Judge" Although no application was filed for re-listing the case for preliminary hearing, yet, such like matters were ordered to be listed. The case is listed before us after about seven years.;