Lt Gen H.S. Panag (Retd) - Armed Forces Tribunal

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT
O.A. No 1734 of 2011
CHANDIMANDIR
Smt. Parbati and others … Applicant
Vs
Union of India and others … Respondents
ORDER
08-11-2011
Coram : Justice Ghanshyam Prasad, Judicial Member.
Lt Gen H.S. Panag (Retd), Administrative Member.
For the Applicant (s) : Mr. Surinder Sheoran, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Ms. Urmil Gupta, CGC.
Lt Gen H.S. Panag (Retd)
respondents.
Issue notice.
Ms. Urmil Gupta, CGC accepts notice on behalf of the
Both the learned counsel agree, that controversy involved in the
present case is covered by the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in a
bunch of cases like OA 50 of 2011 “Hardev Singh and others Vs. Union
of India and others”.
In that view of the matter, for the same reasons, this petitioner
is also allowed, granting the same relief subject to necessary verifications
that may be required by the respondents.
The respondents must comply with the order within four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the petitioner

O.A. No 1734 of 2011
-2-
shall be entitled to get interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this
order.
08-11-2010
‘sns’
(Justice Ghanshyam Prasad)
[ Lt Gen H S Panag(Retd)]

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT
O.A. No 1734 of 2011
CHANDIMANDIR
Smt. Parbati and others … Applicant
Vs
Union of India and others … Respondents
ORDER
08-11-2010
Coram : Justice Ghanshyam Prasad, Judicial Member.
Lt Gen H.S. Panag (Retd), Administrative Member.
For the Applicant (s) : Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Vibhor Bansal, CGC.
Lt Gen H.S. Panag (Retd)
1. This application has been filed under Section 14 of the Armed
Forces Act, 2007 in which the applicant prays for the following reliefs :-
(a) Directions to the respondents to release the family
pension to the petitioners in terms of the original accepted
recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission and the
universally accepted concept of „modified parity‟ and not in
accordance with the illegal clarification issued vide para 4.2 of
Annexure A-4 due to which the family pension of the petitioners

have been drastically reduced. With a further prayer for setting
aside the offending portion of Annexure A-4 and A-7.
(b) Directions to the respondents to iron out the
shocking disparities vide which widows of the JCOs granted
Honorary Commission and became non effective w.e.f.
-2-
1.6.1953 has been granted higher family pension to the
petitioners, whereas earlier to this even upto 5 th CPC, there was
not parity in the family pension of the petitioners and widows of
the JCOs granted Honorary Commission prior to 1.6.1953. It is
also prayed that the respondents may be directed to fix the
family pension of widows of JCO granted Honorary Rank higher
than PBOR.
2. The petitioners who are six in numbers are the widows of late
Junior Commissioned Officers granted Honorary Rank of Lt/Capt in active
service and who retired in the rank of Honorary Lt/Captain or equivalent
from the Defence Services prior to 01.01.2006 and died on or before
31.12.2005, i.e prior to the date of recommendations of 6 th Central Pay
Commission (6 th CPC) were implemented. The 6 th CPC instead of
continuing with separate scales for different ranks initiated a system of pay-
bands instead of pay scales. An additional element called „Grade Pay‟ was
introduced for each rank to define hierarchy with the same pay bands.
While implementing the same, the respondents have calculated the family
pension of all pre-2006 of widows of Hony/Lieutenant and Hony Captain by
taking into account the minimum of Pay Band-3 i.e. Rs. 15600/- which
happens to be the minimum pay of the rank of Lieutenant. The minimum

of pay in the pay band corresponding to the pre-revised scale of the
particular rank from which the husband of the petitioners retired was not
taken into account and based the calculation of family pension of the
widows of Lieutenants and Captains as per Rs. 15,600/-. As a result the
minimum guaranteed family pension of the petitioners has been fixed at Rs.
8100/- and Rs. 8300/- per months instead of Rs. 9280/- and Rs. 9684/-.
The petitioners have prayed for revision of their family pension as per the
spirit and accepted recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. In our view the controversy involved in the present case is
covered by the judgment of this Bench dated 30.5.2011 in OA No. 50 of
2011 titled as “Hardev Singh and others Vs. Union of India & Ors”.
5. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed granting the same
relief as granted in the above case of Hardev Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
6. Necessary calculations, verifications, and accordingly actual
payment be made to the petitioners within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order by the learned counsel for the
respondents, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 10% per
annum.
04-11-2010
‘sns’
(Justice Ghanshyam Prasad)
[ Lt Gen H S Panag(Retd)]