- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel.
(2.) THROUGH this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction for declaration of Rules 24 and 41(1) of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as irrational, ultra vires, illegal, irrelevant, contrary and without any nexus to other pension rules; that the orders Annexures 1 and 4 be quashed and set aside; and the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner all the pensionary benefits for the period for which his service was satisfactory. Not only that, the petitioner has also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sums due from the date of the same fell due to the date of actual payment.
(3.) THE facts of the case, as have been narrated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, depict illustrious litigious perseverance of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein, who was working as Senior Store Superintendent in the Indian Air Force, was subjected to an enquiry and on the basis of the findings recorded with regard to the proved misconduct in the enquiry he was dismissed from the service by order dated 15th December, 1975. This order dated 18.12.1975 was subjected to an appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 1.4.1977. The petitioner chose to prefer Writ Petition No. 623/1978 which was decided on 4th October, 1985 with a direction that the Appellate Authority may afford a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the final orders. The Appellate Authority again passed the order against the petitioner on 26th February, 1986. This order dated 26th February, 1986 was subjected to challenge by pay of Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal again passed an order for affording a personal hearing to the petitioner on 8th June, 1989. In pursuance of this order passed by CAT on 8th June, 1989, personal hearing was again afforded to the petitioner on 28.8.1989 and the appeal was rejected on 9th September, 1989. The petitioner again filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in January, 1990 which was rejected on 19.11.1993. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by way of filing SLP and this SLP was finally rejected on 24th October, 1994. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a Review Petition was also filed before the Supreme Court but that too has been rejected. Having failed in the challenge to the dismissal order upto Supreme Court, the petitioner chose to start another inning of litigation by filing O.A. before the CAT for the purpose of getting pension. This O.A. was rejected by the CAT on 8th October, 1996 and the review thereof was also rejected on 6th January, 1997. Although the rules have been challenged in the earlier O.As. also before the CAT, another O.A. was filed before the CAT by the petitioner saying that no formal order has been passed with regard to the forfeiture of the pension and in absence of any formal order for forfeiture of pension the pension cannot be denied. This O.A. was also rejected on 31st August, 1999, in which the CAT held that the dismissal means the forfeiture of the pension by operation of Rules and no formal order was required to be passed. Now, in the present petition, the petitioner has again challenged the validity of Rules 24 and 41(1) of the Pension Rules and has sought the quashing of the order Annexure -1 which had been passed on 3rd June, 1995 by the Incharge, Air Headquarters, Annexure -2 order dated 8th of October, 1995 passed by the CAT in O.A. 243/96, Annexure -3 dated 6th January, 1997 passed by the CAT in review and Annexure -4 dated 31st August, 1999 passed in O.A. No. 16 of 1999.;