Devendra Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Others

Vide this application, the applicant seeks execution of the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 579 of 2018.

The applicant has averred in the application that he had filed the above mentioned OA for grant of the benefit of broad-banding by rounding off his

war injury element from 20% to 50% with effect from 01.01.2000 for life. The OA was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2018 directing

the respondents to treat the OA of the applicant as representation and decide the same in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Union of India

& Ors. Vs. Ram Avtar passed in Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012 decided on 12.12.2014 and Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal in Ex Sgt Girish

Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in O.A. No. 1439 of 2016 decided on 01.12.2017. A copy of the order was sent to the Officer Incharge, the

Records The Grenadiers vide counsel's letter dated 18.04.2018. However, the respondents have not implemented the said order. Hence, the MA.

Along with this MA, the applicant has filed a letter dated 23.04.2018 sent by the Record Officer for OIC Records to PCDA (P) for grant of benefit

of broadbanding. Therefore, the notice of the application was sent to PCDA (P) to explain as to why the order was not implemented. Thereafter, the

Tribunal was informed that as per the circular issued by the PCDA, there was no need for issuing corrigendum PPO and it was the responsibility of

the bank officials to give benefit of the broadbanding. Thereupon, the representatives of the banks were directed to appear in person.

On 23.09.2019, Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Advocate for PNB, Jatpura Mukimpur Branch appeared and filed a calculation sheet for showing that a sum of

Rs. 2,55,867/ - has been credited in the account of the applicant way back on 24.10.2018 in his pension account.

A perusal of the MA, however, reflected that absolutely no averment was made in the application that this much amount has been credited in the

applicant's pension account. In fact, an impression was given as if the respondents have not granted him the benefit at all. Thereupon, counsel for the

applicant submitted that the applicant was entitled for benefit of broad-banding with effect from 01.10.2000, whereas as per the calculation sheet,

same has been granted with effect from 01.01.2016, whereupon counsel for the respondents showed an order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the

competent authority granting the benefit of broad-banding to the applicant pursuant to the representation dated 08.10.2018 made by the applicant

himself, whereby he requested for grant of benefit of broad-banding of war injury element from 20% to 50% with effect from 01.01.2016, meaning

thereby, the applicant himself claimed the benefit from 01.01.2016 and not prior thereto.

Thereafter, the applicant was directed to place on record the copy of the representation made by him to the competent authority. Same has been

placed on record by the applicant and the averments made in Para 3 of the representation goes to show that the applicant had claimed the benefit of

broad -banding with effect from 01.01.2016 only. Besides that, he had also claimed certain other benefits. That being so, since the conduct of the

applicant himself is not above-board as although the application in hand has been filed on 12.04.2019, however, absolutely no averment was made that

he had already received a sum of Rs. 2,55,867/- on 24.10.2018. In all fairness, if any amount was lacking, the same could have been reflected in the

application but instead of doing so, the applicant tried to give an impression to the Tribunal that the order has not been implemented at all by the

respondents. Furthermore, since the applicant himself claimed the benefit of broad-banding with effect from 01.01.2016 in his representation, which

has been granted to him, therefore, nothing remains in the present application. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on this 30th day of June, 2020.