W.P.(C)/9579/2017 of UTTAM ADHIKARI SURENDER SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 9579/2017

UTTAM ADHIKARI SURENDER SINGH..... PetitionerThrough:Major K Ramesh, Advocate withMs.Archana Ramesh, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... RespondentsThrough:Ms.SarojBidawat,AdvocatewithMr.Amit Dogra, Advocate for R-1 toR-3 with Commandant M.K.Singh.

CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R R%20.03.2019

1. The Petitioner sought voluntary retirement from the Coast Guard aftercompletion of 23 years and 1 Month of service on 1[st]September 2016. Atthe time of his discharge, the Petitioner was in low medical category S2A2for two disabilities viz., Primary Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus Type-2.

2. The Release Medical Board quantified the disability at 40% and furtherclearly indicated that the disabilities, although not caused by the service,were ‘aggravated’ by the service.

3. The question that arises in the present petition is whether the Petitioner isentitled to disability pension?

4. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Coast Guard is very much partof the Armed Forces of the country; it is an extended arm of the Navy andtherefore whatever is applicable to the Armed Forces should ipso facto applyto the Coast Guard as well. According to him although the CCS (ExtraOrdinary Pension) Rules, 1972 [CCS (EOP) Rules] applies to the CoastGuard and Rule 9 (2) thereof envisages payment of disability pension onlywhere the government servant is “boarded out of government service onaccount of his disablement”, in terms of letter dated 25[th]September 20019issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) it has been clarified that disabilitypension will be given even where the person ceases to be in service onaccount of voluntary retirement. It is accordingly contended that the benefitof the said decision of the MoD should be extended to the Coast Guard aswell.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further points out that the criteria forentitlement for disability pension is satisfied in the present case in as muchas the disability is aggravated by the service and the percentage of disabilityis 40%. In terms of the applicable rules as far as Coast Guard is concerned,if the percentage of disability is less than 50% then it should be reckoned forthe purpose of computation of the disability pension as 50%. He accordinglysubmits that the Petitioner should be granted 50% disability pension.

6. The difficulty in accepting the above submission is two-fold. One is that

under Rule 9 (2) of the CCS (EOP) Rules, it is only where the governmentservant is boarded out on account of his disablement that he would beentitled to disability pension. In the present case, the Petitioner soughtvoluntary retirement which was accepted. Secondly, although the letterdated 29[th]September 2009 clarifies that members of the Armed Forceswould be entitled to disability pension even when they retire voluntarily,there is no similar decision of the MoD specific to the Coast Guard.

7. Counsel for the Petitioner referred to letter dated 12[th]August 1980 ofthe MOD addressed to the Director General, Coast Guard inter alia statingthat “the rules prescribed for grant of pensionary benefits to the civilianspaid from defence services estimates are to be adopted for Coast GuardPersonnel ‘mutatis-mutandis’.” The extension of disability pension tomembers of the Armed Forces upon retirement whether voluntary orotherwise is only by way of letter dated 29[th]September 2009 and not byway of amendment to the CCS EOP Rules. The above letter dated 12[th]August 1980 is, therefore, not of any assistance to the Petitioner.

8. Consequently, the Court is unable to grant the relief sought in the presentpetition. However, the Court directs that if the Petitioner makes arepresentation to the MoD not later than 15 days from today for extension tothe Coast Guard of the same benefit granted to the retired personnel ofArmed Forces by the letter dated 29[th]September 2009, then suchrepresentation would be considered by the MoD and reasoned decisionthereon be communicated to the Petitioner within period of six weeksthereafter. It will be open to the Petitioner, if aggrieved by such decision, to

seek appropriate remedies as will be available to the Petitioner in accordancewith law.

9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

MARCH 20, 2019sr

I.S. MEHTA, J.