D B KAUSER Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-159
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 30,2003

D B Kauser Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF HARYANA V. RAI CHAND JAIN AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR AND ANR. V. B. SURESH AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR SUTHAR V. STATE AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
DR. CHANCHAL GOYAL V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
UJJAM BAI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LOKNATH PADHAN VS. BIRENDRA KUMAR SAHU [REFERRED TO]
JAILA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU EDUCATION DEPARTMENT MINIS TERIAL AND GENERAL SUBORDINATE SERVICES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARATIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH RAILWAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
D S NAKARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
R S NAYAK PADMAKAR BALKRISHNA SAMANT VS. A R ANTULAY:ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION ALPANA V MEHTA VS. PARITOSH BHUPESHKUMAR SHETH:MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
HARSHARAN VERMA VS. CHARAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SUSHMA SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NANDLAL JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH MAHAVIDYALAYA TADARTH SHIKSHAK NIYAMITIKARAN ABHIYAN SAMTTI VARANASI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SACHIDANAND PANDEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
A P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HYDERABAD VS. B SARAT CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
KRISHENA KUMAR BALBIR SINGH DESH RAJ KOHLI R N MUBAYI PRESIDENT ALL INDIA RETIRED RAILWAYMEN P F TERMS ASSOCIATION BRIJ MOHAN KAUL K RAVI VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAJASTHAN PENSIONER SAMAJ [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M V NAIR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
T S THIRUVENGADAM VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
ANIL PHUKAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
J AND K PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. NARINDER MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUDHIR KUMAR JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
U P KATTHA FACTORIES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
M C DHINGRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI SCIENCE FORUM NATIONAL TELECOM FEDERATION OF TELECOM EMPLOYEES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A MAHUDESWARAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M BHASKAR [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ANIL KUMAR VS. SADHANA CHAUDHARY:STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. AMRIT LAL GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRANATH MUKHOPADHYAY VS. COAL INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA OTHERS VS. CHANDER SHEKHAR ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
AMI LAL BHAT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD VS. C R RANGADHAMAIAH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. HITENDRA KUMAR BHATT [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN ADULT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION VS. ASHOKA BHATACHARYA KM [REFERRED TO]
MEERA MASSEY MRS ABHA MALHOTRA S C BHADWAL VS. S R MEHROTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. ASWINI KUMAR DASH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K G RADHAKRISHANA PANICKAR [REFERRED TO]
HARI RAM GUPTA DEAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS. S RAGHUNATHAN:S P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. MONOTOSH ROY [REFERRED TO]
T N ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. R VEERASAMY [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M V VALLIAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR U P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDERPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
NETAI BAG VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. NIRANJAN SINGHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. VATAN MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORE [REFERRED TO]
ARNIT DAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BASANT KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR RANI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. S A HASSAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PADAM DEVI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KRISHNA KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-224] [REFERRED TO]
JILA SINGH @ JILE RAM AND 2 OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-250] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.)THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30th December, 2002 by which the application of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay him the gratuity pension commuting valued of pension together with appropriate dearness allowance obtainable since 1993 to December, 1995 and consolidated pension of Rs. 5129/ - per month with interest. He also claimed for some other relief.
(2.)FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner stood retired from service as Assistant Branch Officer on 30th June, 1993 and was paid the retrial benefit as admissible to him according to the Rules. Petitioner raised the dispute before the learned Tribunal that pension and other retrial benefits should have been determined and paid to him taking dearness allowances with pay as has been paid to other retirees who retired after 1.1.1996. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that taking the decision to merge with any part of dearness allowance with pay for all purposes of determining the retrial benefits is a policy decision of the Government, which is taken after considering so many factors and the Tribunal was ill equipped to take a decision in such matters. Nor the Tribunal could interfere with policy decision taken by the Government unless there is a clear cut case on arbitrariness and malaflde. Hence, this petition.
Shri Kauser petitioner -in -person submitted that the decision taken by the Government is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of legitimate explanation, as it had been made applicable in favour of certain persons with a particular cut -off date, i.e., 1.1.1996, and therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be reversed.

(3.)WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.


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