Y JUNG MOHIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY OA No. 2786/1997 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.08.1998 against which Writ Petition No. 5914 of 1998 was preferred by the applicant. The said Writ Petition was heard along with two other connected Writ Petitions No. 5152 and 5461 of 1998 and since the question of facts and law involved therein had been similar, the same was disposed of by a common order dated 09.04.2002 with the following observations:

(2.) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the matter was re-heard. The basic claim made in the aforesaid OA had been to quash the impugned orders and direct the Respondents to re-fix applicant�s pension from 11.12.1964 when he was re-employed in the Aviation Research Centre with consequential benefits like arrears etc.

(3.) THE Respondents contested the claim laid by the applicant and stated that no option was exercised by the applicant and his pension was fixed keeping in view the civil service rendered. THE applicant, who is already receiving Reservist pension from Indian Navy for the reservist period, is not entitled for the civil pension for the same period and the same period cannot be counted towards civil pension as, that would be in violation of Rule 7 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. THE said MAs were dismissed in default and for non-prosecution vide order dated 2.12.2004. However, vide order dated 20.12.2004 on MA 2539/2004, the order dated 2.12.2004 dismissing the MAs in default and for non-prosecution was recalled. When such was the position, the Respondents filed MA 490/2005 contending that the applicant's case is not similar to the officials in whose favour Judgment and Order dated 24.6.2003 was rendered by this Tribunal as the applicant had earlier exercised an option on 16.9.1976 stating that he opted to draw military pension for rendering his services in Defence as a separate pension without counting towards civil pension. MA No. 395/2004 and MA No. 396/2004 were again dismissed in default and for non-prosecution vide order dated 12.4.2005. Again MA No. 958/2005 was preferred by the applicant seeking recall of the order dated 12.4.2005 stating that by the time he reached the Court at 11 a.m. he found that the matter had been dismissed in default. Though the learned Counsel made a request to the Court concerned on the same date for recalling of the order, but the said request was not acceded to. Since the applicant is an old retired pensioner and senior citizen, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury unless the case is not restored.