Sher Singh v. UOI & Ors

order dated 4th February,2004 in contempt petition no.512/2003 whereby directions for personal presence of respondents upon failing to make payment of pensionary benefits to the 15 of 15

petitioner (respondent in this case) were given and the contempt petition stands dismissed accordingly.

With the consent of the parties, we also direct revival of WP(C) 6897/2003 filed by the respondent. WP(C)6897/2003 shall stand revived and be posted for directions before the appropriate bench within 15 days."

19.

It was in these circumstances that present writ petition was revived and after hearing the parties, we are deciding the same on merits. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be that the petitioners cannot count the service rendered by them for the purpose of pension under the interim orders of this Court when ultimately writ petitions filed by the petitioners herein were dismissed holding that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners was legal and valid in law and consequently they had no such right to perform the duties beyond the date of termination. These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

( A.K. SIKRI ) JUDGE

May 02, 2008. (J.M.MALIK) skk

JUDGE

1 of 15 +IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) Nos.6897/2003, 6944-45/2004 & 15682/2006. DATE OF HEARING:18.03.2008 DATE OF DECISION : 02.05.2008 IN THE MATTERS OF : Shri Sher Singh ....... Petitioner in WP(C)No.6897/2003. Bishan Lal & Ors. ....... Petitioners in WP(C)No.6944-45/2004. Hukum Chand ....... Petitioner in WP(C)No.15682/2006. Thru. Ms.Rekha Palli, counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)Nos.6897/03, 15682/06. Major K. Ramesh, counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.6944/04. - Versus – Union of India & Ors. .......Respondents. Thru. Mr.Rajeev Mehra, counsel for the respondent in WP(C)No.6897/03 . Mr.Gaurav Duggal, counsel for the respondent in WP(C)No.6944-45/04. Mr.Rajan Sabharwal, counsel for the respondent in WP(C)No.15682/06. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 2 of 15 A.K. SIKRI, J. A very short but interesting question arises for consideration in these petitions. All these petitioners who were ex-servicemen were re- employed in Special Protection Group in different ranks for specific period. Their services were sought to be terminated on the completion of tenure for which termination order was passed. However, they filed writ petitions in this Court and obtained stay of their termination. By virtue of the stay order granted in their favour they continued in the employment of the respondent. However, the said petitions were ultimately dismissed by this Court. The issue now relates to the grant of pension to these petitioners. If the period of service is counted till the date when the termination orders were to be effective, none of these petitioners have minimum qualifying service to enable them to earn pension. On the other hand, if the period for which they worked under the umbrella of interim order granted by this court in the writ petition, they become entitled to the grant of pension. The petitioners want this period to be included on the premise that they have worked during this period. On the other hand, the respondents are denying the benefit of this period on the ground that termination orders are found to be valid and proper by this Court and thus, the service rendered by them by virtue of interim 3 of 15 orders of this Court should not inure to their benefit. Who is correct is the question before us. 2. Before we discuss the issue with reference to the facts of a particular case, it would be necessary to keep in mind the peculiarity of the organization known as Special Protection Group (SPG). The origin of this organization is traced and discussed in the judgment of this Court in V.H.K. Murthy v. Special Protection Group, 2000 (87) DLT 37, as is clear from the following paragraph in the said judgment:- "Security of the persons holding high positions has become a matter of concern. This country has witnessed in last few years gory instances of assassination of such highly placed persons in the society and it includes Smt. Indira Gandhi, and Shri Rajiv Gandhi former Prime Ministers of India. There have been instances of attempt on the life of such VIPs. In fact Smt. Indira Gandhi was assassinated by none-else but her own Guards who were supposed to protect her from any outside attacks. It is a matter common knowledge that after the assassination of Smt.Indira Gandhi at the hands of her own guards in October,1984, a Special Task Force was raised in the intelligence Bureau to provide proximate security to the Prime Minister of India and his family members. The issue of providing high quality security to the Head of the Government was subjected to microscopic analysis by various agencies of the Government, and a high powered committee headed by Shri Birbal Nath was constituted to examine all aspects of VIP security and make necessary recommendations. The recommendations of the Birbal Nath Commi