Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010020942020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/730/2020 EX-S/350347, HAV/CIPH MAHA SINGH KHATRI S/O. LT. KISHAN LAL R/O. 17/291, GALI NO.3, MAHAVIR PARK BAHADURGARH, HARYANA PIN-124507, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JAYA NAGAR, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI-781022, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-11. 3:THE COMMANDER ASSAM RIFLES TRAINING CENTRE AND SCHOOL DIMAPUR NAGALAND. 4:THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF PENSION AND PENSIONER WELFARE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION LOK NAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI 110003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V KUMAR, MR. B PATHAK,MR. R THADANI Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MRS. A GAYAN,MRS. A GAYAN,MRS. A GAYAN (C.G.C.) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.01.2025 The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “(i) a writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued thereby directing the respondent authorities to re-fix the pension/ family pension of the petitioner as per O.M. dated 29 August 1986 and release the arrear after settlement of the pension/ family pension of the petitioner; (ii) a writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued thereby directing the respondent authorities to immediately release the arrear Fixed Medical Allowance to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1997 till 22.10.2013 as enhanced from time to time; and/or (ii) pass such further or other order shall not be passed as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice and (iv) to make the Rule absolute on perusal of records and after hearing of the parties of the case.” 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was initially enrolled as a Rifleman/ ORL (Operator Radio Line) in the year 1963 in the Assam Rifles. While serving as CHM/Cipher, he had opted for Voluntary Retirement on 31.07.1988. It is also the case of the petitioner that though presently the health aspect is covered under the Central Page No.# 3/5 Government Health Scheme, prior to the said Scheme, medical allowances were paid. The petitioner contends that for the period from 1997 to 2013, medical allowance amounting to Rs. 31,413/- is pending. The other grievance of the petitioner, as would be evident from the relief claimed is with regard to the pension. The petitioner claims that while calculating pension, there is an error and the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission has not been taken into consideration. In this regard, the petitioner claims to have submitted a representation on 22.06.2019 which has not been replied to. 3. I have heard Shri B Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. A Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) for the respondents. 4. Shri Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that presently, the petitioner is about 80 years old and sufficient time has elapsed since filing of the writ petition and yet, the grievances have not been redressed. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents on 20.01.2021, it has been stated that the representation was not received by the respondents. Nonetheless, as a reply to the claim which is revealed from the affidavit-in-opposition, it transpires that while the subsequent Pay Commission, namely, 5th, 6th and 7th have been mentioned, there is no reference to the 4th Pay Commission. 5. Per contra, Ms. Gayan, learned CGC has, at the outset, raised an objection of delay by contending that the petitioner had admittedly gone on voluntary retirement on 31.07.1988 and the writ petition has been filed long thereafter in the year 2020. On the merits of the case, she submits that the claim for arrear amounts on account of medical allowance has been sent for further processing to the Central Pension Accounts Office (CPAO), New Delhi. As regards the aspect of pension, she has Page No.# 4/5 submitted that the representation was never received. In any case, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 20.01.2021, the learned CGC has submitted that the aspect was duly looked into and there is no discrepancy in the pension. 6. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials available on record have also been carefully examined. 7. Though the aspect of delay in approaching a writ court is a relevant factor, it appears that the arrear is for the period of 1997 to 2013 and not from 1988. This Court has also noticed that in the affidavit-in-opposition, there is a clear admission regarding the amount and the explanation given is that the same has been forwarded for further processing before the CPAO, New Delhi. As regards the claim for pension at the correct rate, it is seen that in the affidavit-in-opposition, the position has been tried to be explained by taking recourse to 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commissions. However, the reply does not take into account the aspect of the 4th Pay Commission. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the facts and circumstances, this Court directs the respondent authorities to bring the aspect of release of the amount regarding medical allowance to a logical conclusion within a further period of 3 months from today. As regards, the claim for pension, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation specifically bringing into account, the application of the 4th Pay Commission and in the event such an representation is filed, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the same with a Speaking Order within a period of 2 months from the date of such receipt. Such consideration is however to be done strictly in accordance with law. Page No.# 5/5 9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant