Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1498 of 2018 on OMJC Courtesy Maj S K Jain (retd)
(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1498 OF 2018
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Major Sushil Kumar Jain (Retired),
Son of Late Shri Chetan Lal Jain, aged 64 years,
R/o House No 670 (2nd Floor),
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi -110009.
Email: majorskjain@gmail.com … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India,
Ministry of Defence
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
Through its Secretary
Room No.-5A
South Block, New Delhi-110011 ….. Respondent
WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CHALLENGING THE INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 RIGHTS OF THE EX-SERVICEMEN OF DEFENCE FORCES IN REGARD TO GET THE ANOMALIES REMOVED BY THE RESPONDENT EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY ONE MAN JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (OMJC)
To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Humble Petition of the
Petitioner above-named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1. The Petitioner is filing the instant writ petition in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, of those Ex-Servicemen of defence forces who have been given one rank one pension but there are certain anomalies which have been identified by the respondent itself and have been referred by the respondent itself to the one man judicial committee (OMJC) for its recommendations for removing the anomalies pointed out by the respondent itself but till date same has not been done. It is pertinent to mention here that the objective envisaged in One Rank One Pension (herein after referred as ‘OROP’) that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners. The Government/respondent has failed to get the anomalies removed even after the recommendations made by one man judicial committee (OMJC) under the chairmanship of Justice Reddy two years ago in letter and spirit and has infringing the right to life of the armed forces pensioners, war widow and its dependent and said act of the respondent is discriminatory in nature and payment of pension is arbitrary and is violative of article 14 of the constitution.
2. That the petitioner is retired armed force officer of the Indian Army and he has served the nation with great velour and courage and always ready for giving for supreme sacrifice for protection of the integrity and sovereignty of our nation and after rendering at least more than 22 years of selfless service and was pre-maturely retired in the year 2000 from active service. The petitioner espousing the cause of penury and misery condition of 18.60 Lakhs of retired armed personnel, war veterans, war widows, disabled personnel in the line of duty due to failure of the respondent in removal of the anomalies in the implementation of OROP in letter and spirit and failure to make the report of One Man Judicial Committee (hereinafter referred as OMJC) public even after expiry of about 24 months from the submission of the report by the Judicial Committee, which is amounting to concealment of the report from public domain. The petitioner’s Bank account number is ICICI Bank SB A/C 113001001384, Pan Number is AEHPJ1385G and Aadhar number is 438170940902. The petitioner has no personal interest, or private/oblique motive in filing the instant petition. There is no civil, criminal, revenue or any litigation involving the petitioner, which has or could have a legal nexus with the issues involved in the PIL. The petitioner herein is invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under article 32 of the Constitution of India which being remedial Fundamental Right and a “the Cornerstone of the Democratic Edifice” as the protector and guarantor of the Fundamentals Rights & is based upon the information/documents also which are in public domain. The failure on the part of the Govt. to get the anomalies removed by the respondent in regard to One Rank One Pension (OROP) in letter and spirit which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Arbitrariness on the part of the respondent is averred from the fact that first of all respondent itself admitted the anomalies in the implementation of OROP and subsequently referred the issues to the One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) for consideration and for making the recommendations vide letter dated 20.07.2016 and even after having received the report of the One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC), respondent failed to act upon the same. The Press release of Press Information Bureau, Govt. of India suggests that Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman of One man Judicial Committee (OMJC) on One Rank One Pension (OROP) has been pleased to submit the report to the then Minister for Defence Mr. Manohar Parrikar on 26th October 2016 and even after lapse of at least 24 months, the Respondent failed to make the report of the OMJC public. Further, this issue has been raised in both the houses of the parliament, however, yet the respondent has failed to get anomalies removed in regard to the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) in letter and spirit.
3. That delay in making the report of the One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) public and having failed to get the anomalies removed has become a cause of disquiet (anxiety)/ discontent (Displeasure) in the Armed Forces Pensioners.
Brief facts & circumstances of the case are given herein below:
4. That it is respectfully submitted that respondent has unveiled and has attempted to implement the one rank one pension (OROP) to the defence forces pensioners vide Letter No. 12 (1) 2014/D (Pen/Pol)- part II dated 07.11.2015. Even the respondent has anticipated that anomalies would be arising consequent upon the implementation of the OROP scheme and subsequently, One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) was appointed under Chairmanship of Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy & issues were referred for seeking recommendations on the same.
True Copy of the letter dated 07.11.2015 issued by respondent seeking implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure –P-1 ( Page __to _______).
5. That it is submitted that 7th CPC was constituted for formulating the principle for computation of the salary/ emoluments of all the Central Government employees such as civilian and defence and for suggesting the structure of emoluments thereof. The Commission has submitted its report on 19.11.2015 wherein the committee in Chapter 10.2 has acknowledged that the defence force personnel retire at relatively young age and majority of them are of lower rung defence officials. The Commission further observed that major chunk of early retirement of defence forces are of JCO/ ORS in all three service and 7th CPC also indicates the fact that there are 18.6 Lacs Armed Force Pensioners.
True copy of relevant extract of the report of 7th CPC dated 19.11.2015 issued by Govt. of India is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P- 2 (Page No. ___ to ______)
6. That it is respectfully submitted that even the respondents anticipated the fact that anomalies would be arising in implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) and has been pleased to appoint an one man judicial committee (OMJC) under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Former Chief Justice of Patna High Court, vide MoD (DESW) Notification No. 12(01)/2014-D(pen/Pol)-Part-II dated 14 December 2015 to examine the anomalies of the One Rank, One Pension (OROP). The terms of reference of OMJC were made to examine and make recommendations on references received from the Government, which are enumerated herein below:-
(i) Measures for the removal of anomalies that may arise in implementation of the OROP Letter No. 12(1) /2014/D (Pen/Pol)/Part-II dated 7.11.2015;
(ii) Measures for the removal of anomalies that may arise out of inter-service issues of the three forces due to implementation of OROP order ibid;
(iii) Implications on service matters and;
(iv) Any other matter referred by the Central Government on implementation of the OROP related issues.
True copy of notification for appointment of One man Judicial Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, former Chief Justice of Patna High Court and its terms of reference vide Notification No.12(01)/2014-D(pen/Pol)-Part-II dated 14.12.2015 issued by Govt. of India is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P- 3 ( Page _______to _______).
7. That after constitution of Judicial Committee on OROP, on 14.12.2015, the Government of India issued a public notice dated 13.04.2016 for eliciting the views of the public at large and other stake holders on the anomalies arising out the proposed OROP scheme. The said public notice further states that Respondents herein had issued notification dated 07.11.2015 for implementation of OROP for the Defence Forces Personnel. Further, the Respondent by virtue of the said public notice sought the representations and suggestions and views on the revised pension scheme of OROP by 29th April 2016.
True copy of the public notice dated 13.04.2016 issued by the Government of India for eliciting the views of the public at large and other stake holders on the anomalies arising out the proposed OROP scheme is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- P- 4 (Page _______to _______)
8. That consequent upon the public notice, large numbers of representations were received from the stake holders on the anomalies which have been arisen in the implementation of OROP. After taking into account of large numbers of the representations which were received in pursuance of the supra public notice, Respondent after applying its mind, has reframed the issues by considering the anomalies crept therein and referred the issues to One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) for examining the same. The relevant extract of the issues which have been reframed by the respondent, referred to one man Judicial Committee (OMJC) vide letter dated 20.07.2016, are as under:-
(i) Whether the benefit of OROP is to be extended to Reservists ?
(ii) Whether the pension tables for more than 33 years of qualifying
service are to be prepared ?
(iii) Whether the methodology followed for fixation of pension under OROP in the absence of actual retirees in the same rank and same qualifying service for the below mentioned categories requires any modification ?
Regular L& Capt. getting same pension as Honorary Lieutenant & Captain.
Doctors of AMC/ADC/RVC for the rank Lieutenant, Captain & Major under OROP getting same as Hony Lt. & Hony Captain.
Doctors of AMC/ADC/RVC for the tank of Major getting lower than the regular commissioned officers of the rank of Major.
TA personnel for the rank of Captain / Major and Lt. Col getting the same pension.
Lieutenant/Captain and Major in MNS Category data is blank.
Rank of Major in Regular commissioned officers getting less than Major in EC and SSC category.
Whether the methodology followed for fixation of pension under OROP for invalidated out war injury pensioners and liberalized family pensioners requires any modification in pension fixation formula.
Whether in the case of JCO/ORS, the pension is to be paid on the basis of the last rank held instead of last rank pensioned under OROP.
True copy of the letter dated 20.07.2016 addressed by the Respondent to Mr. Justice L Narsimha Reddy Head of Judicial Committee on OROP after reframing the issue for considering the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure –P-5 (Page ___ to ____)
9. That vide notification dated 02.08.2016 issued by the One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) on OROP, in order to take the views of defence personnel sought the views in order to get the larger participation of the stake-holders, the committee has been pleased to visit at 19 places and also sought the participation for oral hearing at the stations mentioned therein the said notification.
True copy of the notification dated 02.08.2016 issued by one man judicial committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice L. Narsimha Reddy is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- P- 6 (Page _______to _______)
10. That on bare perusal of the aforesaid, the Ld. Chairperson of the said One-man Judicial Committee (OMJC) elaborately heard the grievances of the defence personnel qua the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) in the entire country and vide press information Bureau, Ministry of Defence suggested that the One man Judicial Committee on One Rank One Pension (OROP) submitted its report to the then Defence Minister on 26.10.2016 vide Press Information Bureau release dated 26.10.2016.
True copy of the report of One man Judicial Committee on One Rank One Pension (OROP) submitted vide press information Bureau report dated 26.10.2016 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P- 7 (Page _______to _______).
11. That it is submitted that since the report has already been submitted by the Committee to the Government and after expiry of at least two years, nothing has been heard from the Government side in regard to the implementation of the report of committee or the respondent has concealed the report of the Committee, the respondent, which has been constituted for the betterment and welfare and the retired armed force personnel and majority of the personnel getting meager amount of the pension. The respondent has concealed and failed to act upon the recommendation of the higher powered one man judicial committee which has extensively and elaborately heard the grievances of the personnel at the various stations and it seems that the elaborate recommendation. However, the respondents have concealed the same which shows the malafide and arbitrariness of the respondent.
12. That the aforesaid callous act of the respondent has defeated the whole purpose of constituting the high powered One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) under the Chairmanship of Former Chief Justice of Patna High Court and the elaborate process adopted by the committee will be deprived of its utility if the opinion and recommendations of the expert body has not been made public and has failed to get the same implemented.
13. That it is further submitted that on 31.03.2017, in response to un-starred question No.4992 the Hon’ble Minister for Defence by giving reply on 31.03.2017 confirmed about the fact on the report submitted by the judicial committee on 26.10.2016 that it is being examined but till date no outcome has been given.
True copy of the reply dated 31.03.2017 given by Hon’ble Minster for Defence is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- P- 8 ( At page No. ___ to _____)
14. That it is further submitted that the issue qua report of the committee and its implementation was again raised in the Lok Sabha by way of Starred question No.374 wherein the Hon’ble Minister for Defence has made the statement that an internal committee has been constituted on 19.07.2017 to examine the report of one man Judicial Committee with respect to feasibility and financial aspects. Said so-called internal committee is still examining the issue but to of no avail. True copy of the reply dated 11.08.2017 given by Hon’ble Minster for Defence is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- P- 9 ( At page No. ___ to _____)
15. That it is further submitted that the Hon’ble Minister of State for Defence has again replied by making a statement in regard to un starred question no. 211 at the floor of Rahya Sabha vide statement made at the floor of Rajya Sabha on 18.12.2017 that the internal committee has been constituted for examining the feasibility aspect of the report of the one man judicial committee.
True copy of the statement made on the floor of Rajya Sabha Hon’ble Minster for Defence on 18.12.2017 in response to un starred question no. 211 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- P-10 (At page No. ___ to _____)
16. That in response to starred question no. 130, statement was made by the Hon’ble Minster for defence on 27.12.2017 in Lok Sabha and Hon’ble Minster for Defence once again reiterated about the constitution of internal committee for examining the feasibility aspect regarding the implementation of the report of one man judicial committee.
True copy of the statement made by the Hon’ble Minister of Defence on 27.12.2017 in Lok Sabha is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P-11.( At page No. ___ to _____).
17. That thereafter petitioner made online grievance on 08.07.2018 before the respondent for the removal of the anomalies arose in the proper implementation of OROP.
True copy of online grievance on made on 08.07.2018 by the petitioner before respondent is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P-12( At page No. ___ to _____).
18. That respondent vide its letter dated 27.07.2018 gave reply to the petitioner that report submitted by one Member Judicial Committee on OROP is still under examination.
True copy of reply given by respondent to the petitioner vide its letter dated 27.07.2018 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure – P-13. ( At page No. ___ to _____).
19.. That the Respondent has failed to appreciate that the One man Judicial Committee was constituted for solitary function to examine the socio economic condition of the defence personnel who were relived from the service at a younger age and such personnel who have served the nation during the war and also in peace time and the mandate of the committee to examine and suggest the measure qua implementation in regard to uniformity qua pension to the defence personnel in order to get relief from economic hardship. In pursuance thereof, the committee has gathered the information and heard the grievances of thousands and thousands of retired defence personnel in the different part of the country and after gathering the relevant information and after hearing the various stakeholders, it appears that the elaborate report has been submitted to the government. Even after expiry of the considerable period of time of two years, the respondent had not made the said report public. Therefore, the aforesaid act of the respondent is violation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation of the defence pensioners.
20. That it is submitted that respondent being instrumentalities of the state has failed to publish the report even after the expiry of at least two years and has deprived the expectation of the benefits of the large numbers of the armed personnel, war widow, medical de-categorized armed personnel and relief which ought to have been accrued to them which has not been fulfilled till date due to slackness on the part of the respondents and the armed force pensioners in large numbers are having expectation that due to uniformity and reform in the pension would be raise the bar regarding the standard of living, which has given locus standi to the petitioner to seek the judicial review against said act which violates the right to life under article 21 of the constitution. The act of the respondent is prima facie arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair, malicious and violative of principle of natural justice.
21. That this Hon’ble Court in the case of M/s Sethi Auto Service Station Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 6143 of 2008, has examined the concept of legitimate expectation and laid down that legitimate expectation is at the root of the constitutional principle of the rule of law.
22. The acts of the respondent are violative of the principle of natural justice and is contrary to legitimate expectation of the large number of the armed forces pensioners and it is further submitted that the highest functionary of the country including respondent administration have explicitly promised clear and unambiguous manner to the defence pensioners of our country to get the anomalies removed in the implementation of the OROP and in furtherance of the promise, the respondents have constituted the high powered one man judicial committee under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice, Patna High Court, the committee has proposed the recommendations and however, the respondent after expiry of at least 24 months from the day of submission of report, has failed even to make report public after getting the anomalies removed in the implementation of OROP, which suggests the arbitrariness, unfairness and is denial of legitimate expectation of the large numbers of armed forces pensioners.
23. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition seeking the same relief before this Hon’ble Court or in any other court.
GROUNDS
Because failure on the part of the Govt. to get the anomalies removed by the respondent in regard to One Rank One Pension (OROP) in letter and spirit which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Arbitrariness on the part of the respondent is averred from the fact that first of all respondent itself admitted the anomalies in the implementation of OROP and subsequently referred the issues to the One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) for consideration and for making the recommendations vide letter dated 20.07.2016 and even after having received the report of the One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC), respondent failed to act upon the same. The Press release of Press Information Bureau, Govt. of India suggests that Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman of One man Judicial Committee (OMJC) on One Rank One Pension (OROP) has been pleased to submit the report to the then Minister for Defence Mr. Manohar Parrikar on 26th October 2016 & even after lapse of at least 24 months, the Respondent failed to make the report of the OMJC public. Further, this issue has been raised in both the houses of the parliament, however, yet respondent has failed to get anomalies removed in regard to the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) in letter and spirit.
Because delay in making the report of the One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) public and having failed to get the anomalies removed has become a cause of disquiet (anxiety)/ discontent (Displeasure) in the Armed Forces Pensioners.
Because 7th CPC was constituted for formulating the principle for computation of the salary/ emoluments of all the Central Government employees such as civilian and defence and for suggesting the structure of emoluments thereof. The Commission has submitted its report on 19.11.2015 wherein the committee in Chapter 10.2 has acknowledged that the defence force personnel retire at relatively young age and majority of them are of lower rung defence officials. The Commission further observed that major chunk of early retirement of defence forces are of JCO/ ORS in all three service and 7th CPC also indicates the fact that there are 18.6 Lacs Armed Force Pensioners.
Because respondent has taken initiative of half-heartedly and there was apprehension that if One Rank One Pension (OROP) would be implemented in the present form and JCO and other rank of defence personnel will hardly get any increase in pension. Further, the defence personnel gets hopes after the recommendation of the parliamentary committee, all their hopes and expectations was got robbed /deprived.
Because it is submitted that since the report has already been submitted by the Committee to the Government and after expiry of at least two years, nothing has been heard from the Government side in regard to the implementation of the report of committee or the respondent has concealed the report of the Committee, the respondent, which has been constituted for the betterment and welfare and the retired armed force personnel and majority of the personnel getting meager amount of the pension.
Because the aforesaid callous act of the respondent has defeated the whole purpose of constituting the high powered One Man Judicial Committee (OMJC) under the Chairmanship of Former Chief Justice of Patna High Court and the elaborate process adopted by the committee will be deprived of its utility if the opinion and recommendations of the expert body has not been made public and has failed to get the same implemented.
Because Respondent has failed to appreciate that the One man Judicial Committee was constituted for solitary function to examine the socio economic condition of the defence personnel who were relived from the service at a younger age and such personnel who have served the nation during the war and also in peace time and the mandate of the committee to examine and suggest the measure qua implementation in regard to uniformity qua pension to the defence personnel in order to get relief from economic hardship. In pursuance thereof, the committee has gathered the information and heard the grievances of thousands and thousands of retired defence personnel in the different part of the country and after gathering the relevant information and after hearing the various stakeholders, it appears that the elaborate report has been submitted to the government. Even after expiry of the considerable period of time of two years, the respondent had not made the said report public. Therefore, the aforesaid act of the respondent is violation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation of the defence pensioners.
Because respondent being instrumentalities of the state has failed to publish the report even after the expiry of at least two years and has deprived the expectation of the benefits of the large numbers of the armed personnel, war widow, medical de-categorized armed personnel and relief which ought to have been accrued to them which has not been fulfilled till date due to slackness on the part of the respondents and the armed force pensioners in large numbers are having expectation that due to uniformity and reform in the pension would be raise the bar regarding the standard of living, which has given locus standi to the petitioner to seek the judicial review against said act which violates the right to life under article 21 of the constitution. The act of the respondent is prima facie arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair, malicious and violative of principle of natural justice.
Because acts of the respondent are violative of the principle of natural justice and is contrary to legitimate expectation of the large number of the armed forces pensioners and it is further submitted that the highest functionary of the country including respondent administration have explicitly promised clear and unambiguous manner to the defence pensioners of our country to get the anomalies removed in the implementation of the OROP and in furtherance of the promise, the respondents have constituted the high powered one man judicial committee under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice, Patna High Court, the committee has proposed the recommendations and however, the respondent after expiry of at least 24 months from the day of submission of report, has failed even to make report public after getting the anomalies removed in the implementation of OROP, which suggests the arbitrariness, unfairness and is denial of legitimate expectation of the large numbers of armed forces pensioners.
Because the committee which received the large number of representations, identified the points for the discussions & made the recommendation for implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) Scheme enumerated in the para -2 of the notification. Further, the said notification averred that the One Man Judicial Committee proposed the views the defence personnel and sought the view in order to get the larger participation of the stake holders, the committee has been pleased to visit at 19 places and also sought the participation for oral hearing at the stations mentioned in the said notification but till date nothing has been done in this regard.
Because even after hearing the grievances of the defence personnel qua the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) in the entire country by Ld. Chairperson of the said One-man Judicial Committee and even after the suggestion of press information Bureau, Ministry of Defence that the One man Judicial Committee on One Rank One Pension (OROP) submitted its report vide Press Information Bureau report dated 26.10.2016, grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed.
Because issue qua report of the committee and its implementation was again raised in the Lok Sbha by way of Starred questions wherein the Hon’ble Minster for Defence has made the statement that an internal committee has been constituted on 19.07.2017 to examine the report of one man Judicial Committee with respect to feasibility and financial aspects. The aforesaid conduct of the respondent itself is contradictory and it shows the lack of seriousness on the part of respondent in implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) that even after lapse of at least one year, the internal committee was constituted for examining the feasibility for implementation. The said so-called internal committee is still examining the issue.
Because this Hon’ble Court in the case of M/s Sethi Auto Service Station Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors, has examined the concept of legitimate expectation and laid down that legitimate expectation is at the root of the constitutional principle of the rule of law. The act of the respondent are violative of the principle of natural justice and is contrary to legitimate expectation of the large number of the armed personnel especially retired personnel and it is further submitted that the highest functionary of the country including respondent administration have explicitly promised clear and unambiguous manner to the defence personnel of our country to implement the OROP and in furtherance of the promise, the respondents have constituted the high powered judicial committee under the chairmanship of former Chief Justice, Patna High Court, Committee has proposed the recommendation and however the respondent after expiry of at least 24 months from the day of submission of report, has failed to even to make report public, which suggests the arbitrariness, unfairness and is denial of legitimate expectation of the large numbers of armed forces.
Because respondent has failed to get the anomalies removed even after making an online grievance before the respondent in July 2018 and reply has been given by the respondent that report submitted by one Member Judicial Committee on OROP is still under examination but no definite reply has been given by the respondent in this regard, therefore, it is evident from it that respondent has not been looking the matter in proper perspective..
PRAYER
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to respondent for removal of anomalies in the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP) in letter and spirit.
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to respondent to make the report of the committee public by getting it published.
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to respondents for the redressal of grievance of the petitioner qua the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) in the entire country.
Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
DRAWN BY FILED BY
KUMAR RAJESH SINGH
& PUNAM SINGH
ADVOCATES, SUPREME COURT ( NIRANJANA SINGH )
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
NEW DELHI
DRAWN ON: 21. 10. 2018
FILED ON: .10. 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment