Deb Singh vs SHRI RACHNA SHAH

1

Item No.14 (C-1) C.P. No.918/2025 in O.A. No.3110/2019

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi


C.P. No.918/2025
in
O.A. No.3110/2019

th
This the 25 day of August, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Deb Singh (Group 'C'), Post- Driver (Retd.),
S/o Sh. Jeet Singh Mehra,
R/o House No. 904, Himanchali CGHS Ltd.,
Plot No. 8, Sector -03, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110078.

…Petitioner
(By Advocate: Mr. Raj Singh Phogat)

Versus

Shri Rachna Shah,
Secretary, Ministry of Pers. & Tgr.,
31402, Kartavya Bhawan,
New Delhi-03.

…Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Dhananjai Rana with Mr. Sujit Kr.
Mishra, US, DoP&T and Mr. Naveen Kr., SO, DoP&T)
110001", Phone= 83adb11718fb7b3990
6534c3b0931bebbe6c ca1caf80f9d70a44adb
ceedf0ddf, SERIALNUMBER=
875f17e46115f492911
8cd40b8a596d46b65e
YAKSH
YADAV

2

Item No.14 (C-1) C.P. No.918/2025 in O.A. No.3110/2019

ORDER (ORAL)

Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman:

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by this
Tribunal in O.A. No. 3110/2019.
2. By the aforesaid order, the Original Application was
allowed and the order dated 22.05.2019 passed by
respondent No. 2 was quashed and set aside. The
respondents were directed to sanction the Disability
Pension and allowance as compensation in lump sum, in
lieu of disability pension, with arrears of disability pension
w.e.f. 01.09.2011, within twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of the order. The respondents
were further directed to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the
applicant within the same period.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner had suffered 50% disability.
Thereafter, he was continued in Government service in a
different capacity and subsequently retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner is also
receiving his regular pension.
110001", Phone= 83adb11718fb7b3990
6534c3b0931bebbe6c ca1caf80f9d70a44adb
ceedf0ddf, SERIALNUMBER=
875f17e46115f492911
8cd40b8a596d46b65e
YAKSH
YADAV

3

Item No.14 (C-1) C.P. No.918/2025 in O.A. No.3110/2019

4. In terms of the directions passed by this Tribunal in O.A.
No. 3110/2019, the respondents were required to sanction
the Disability Pension and allowance as compensation in
lump sum, in lieu of disability pension, with the arrears as
directed therein.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions,
submits that an amount of approximately Rs.2,59,909/-
has already been paid to the petitioner towards the
compensation in lump sum. This fact is not disputed by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's case is covered under Rule 9(2) of the CCS
(Extraordinary Pension) Rules and, therefore, he was
entitled to disability pension. Learned counsel further
submits that the respondents have also not granted the
allowances.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary,
submits that the petitioner's case is covered under Rule
9(3) and that the lump-sum amount in lieu of disability
pension has accordingly been granted and paid to him.
8. It is made clear that, from the aforesaid order of the
Tribunal, the petitioner was not granted disability pension
110001", Phone= 83adb11718fb7b3990
6534c3b0931bebbe6c ca1caf80f9d70a44adb
ceedf0ddf, SERIALNUMBER=
875f17e46115f492911
8cd40b8a596d46b65e
YAKSH
YADAV

4

Item No.14 (C-1) C.P. No.918/2025 in O.A. No.3110/2019

under Rule 9(2), but was granted compensation in lump
sum in lieu of disability pension under Rule 9(3). The
respondents have stated that the said lump-sum
compensation has already been paid to the petitioner,
which fact is not disputed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Rule 9-
A of the said Rules and submits that the respondents have
not granted the allowance admissible thereunder.
10. Having gone through the said provision, we find that
the condition precedent for grant of the said allowance is
100% disability. Admittedly, the petitioner has suffered
50% disability. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to
the said allowance.
11. So far as the direction of this Tribunal regarding
payment of costs is concerned, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the same may be waived. We are
unable to accept the said submission, as the said direction
forms part of the order of this Tribunal and, as submitted
before us, the said order has also been affirmed by the
Hon’ble High Court.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions,
undertakes that the amount of Rs.20,000/- towards costs,
110001", Phone= 83adb11718fb7b3990
6534c3b0931bebbe6c ca1caf80f9d70a44adb
ceedf0ddf, SERIALNUMBER=
875f17e46115f492911
8cd40b8a596d46b65e
YAKSH
YADAV

5

Item No.14 (C-1) C.P. No.918/2025 in O.A. No.3110/2019

as directed by this Tribunal, shall be paid to the petitioner
within a period of two weeks from today. The said
statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Tribunal.
13. In the above circumstances, nothing further survives
for consideration of this Tribunal. The present C.P. is
accordingly closed. Notices, if any, stand discharged.
DASTI.

(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman



/yy/
110001", Phone= 83adb11718fb7b3990
6534c3b0931bebbe6c ca1caf80f9d70a44adb
ceedf0ddf, SERIALNUMBER=
875f17e46115f492911
8cd40b8a596d46b65e
YAKSH
YADAV