Kerala High Court
K.Soman vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.4355 OF 2018(T)
PETITIONER:
K.SOMAN
(EX-PTR 106504Y),AGED 69 YEARS,S/O.KRISHNAN,"SREE
VALSAM",SPRA 102,MASJID
LANE,NETTAYAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR
SMT.O.A.NURIYA
SMT.K.R.RENJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND
PENSION,NEW DELHI,PIN-110011.
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
BOARDER ROADS ENGINEERING SERVICE.(GENERAL RESERVE
ENGINEER FORCE).NEW DELHI-110011.
3 THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
PENSIONS,DRAUPADI GHAT,ALLAHABAD-211014.
4 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
O/C.NER GP,GREF RECORDS,BIDHI CAMP,PUNE-411015.
5 THE STATE BABK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,CNETRALIZED
PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE,LMS COMPOUND,BEHIND MAIN
BLOCK,VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
R1 BY SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.V., CGC
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.V. CGC
SRI. N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI - CGC, SRI.
P.RAMAKRISHNAN - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4355 OF 2018 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of January 2021
The petitioner says that he was enrolled in the General
Reserve Engineer Force (G.R.E.F.), which is the Subordinate
Organisation of the Boarder Roads Organization, as a Painter on
25.6.1966 and that he was discharged from its services on his
application dated 31.3.1990, with the total service of 28 ½ years.
His grievance in this case is that a pension of Rs. 417/- has been
granted to him on a miscalculation and that the benefits of the 7 th
pay revision had not been extended to him.
2. The petitioner, through his learned counsel
Smt. Smriti Sasidharan, therefore, prays that Exts. P3 and P5
orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to refix his
initial pension as per Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and also
to grant him the benefits under the 7th Pay Commission Report.
3. In response, the learned Central Government
Counsel Shri. Girish Kumar, submitted that a counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, wherein it has been
explained how the petitioner's initial pension had been calculated
and contended that there is no error in doing so. He explained that
the petitioner's initial pension was calculated by reckoning 33
years of service and in the manner as is mentioned in paragraph 3
of the counter affidavit. As regards the 7th Pay Commission Report
is concerned, he submitted that, as is also mentioned in the
counter affidavit, the petitioner had not favoured the competent
Authorities with any supporting document nor had he made any
representation for such purpose, in spite of clear instructions by
the O I C GREF records, to get his pension in accordance with
the office memorandum dated 6.4.2016. He added that, therefore,
Ext. R4(e) corrigendum was later issued implementing the 7 th
Central Pay Commission in favour of the petitioner with effect from
1.1.2016. The learned Central Government Counsel thus prayed
that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and
have also gone through the materials on record.
5. The specific contention of Smt. Smriti Sasidaran,
learned counsel for the petitioner is that going by Rule 48 of the
CCS (Pension Rules) 1972, the petitioner's qualifying service ought
to have been taken as 30, instead of 33 and that had this been
done, his pension would have been higher than what has been
fixed. As regards the Central Pay Commission benefits are
concerned, Smt. Smriti Sasidaran submitted that all relevant
documents and records had been forwarded by the petitioner
through proper channel; and alternatively submitted that, even if
this is not so, the respondents could not have denied such benefits
to her client, since they are automatic on the implementation of
the Pay Revision Orders. She, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that
this writ petition be allowed.
6. When I examine the counter affidavit of the
respondents, it is clear that the amount of family pension
calculated is 50% of the average emoluments, subject to a
maximum of Rs. 4500/- per month and that their position is that
since the petitioner does not have the necessary minimum
qualifying years of service, the pension will have to be calculated
on a prorata basis. It further says that since the petitioner has only
23 years 6 months and 19 days of qualifying service at the time he
took voluntary retirement - with two months and 17 days being
non qualifying service - his pension has been calculated correctly.
7. However, as said above, the petitioner's specific
contention is that it is Rule 48 of the CCC (Pension) Rules 1972,
which is applicable and that while calculating the pension only 30
years ought to have been taken into account by the respondents.
That apart, the petitioner has also a case that the 7 th pay
commission report benefits have not been given to him, which is
partially acceded to by the respondents, who say this is because
he has not approached the competent authorities with the relevant
documents in time.
8. From the afore narrative, it is obvious that the
petitioner's contentions had not been met by the respondents as of
now, though they are answered it in the manner as stated in the
counter affidavit.
9. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is
required to be heard by the competent Authority, so that all his
grievances can be taken note of and addressed to the extent
possible, particularly because, most of them are in the realm of
factual factors and circumstances, into which this Court cannot
enter into affirmatively, while acting under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and
direct the 3rd respondent - who is stated to be the competent
Authority - to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner
- either physically or through video conferencing - during which
time, he will also be entitled to produce all documents in support
of his claims, particularly as regards the benefits under the 7 th Pay
Commission Report, thus culminating in an appropriate final order
as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from
the date of receipt a the copy of this judgment.
I make it clear that eventhough I have not set aside
Exts.P3 and P5 orders, the 3rd respondent will be obligated to
consider the petitioner's case afresh, while issuing an order in
terms of the afore directions and decide if the said orders require
to be notified or maintained.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SMF/20.01
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING PENSION
TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
PRINCIPLE CONTROLLER OF
DEFENCE(PENSIONS)DATED 13/3/2O13
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER FROM OF OFFICE OF THE
AEE,CIVIL (GREF)DATED 20/6/2014
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIOIN ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
AEE,CIVIL(GREF)DATED 20/6/2014
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.CPPC/0941/1475 DATED 5/2/2016 ISSUED
BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA TO THE
ACOUNTANTS OFFICER(AUDIT),PCDA
ALLAHABAD.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.C-140 DATED
8/4/2016 OF THE PRINCIPLE CONTROLLER &
DEFENCE ACCOUNTS(PENSIONS)
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED
6/4/2016
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
4/2/2017 ISSUED BY THE OIC NER GP,GREF
RECORDS TO THE VETERAN CELL STATION,HEAD
QUARTERS,PANGODE.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
20/4/2017 ISSUED BY THE OIC NER GP,GREF
RECORDS DATED 20/4/2017
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE DATE
23/6/2017
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
12/9/2017 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS PENSION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
RULE 49 OF CCS PENSION RULES 1972
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
RULE 49 OF CCS PENSION RULES 1972
EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CTC OF CALCULATION
SHEET OF THE PENSION RULES IN RESPECT OF
BADGE NO 106504Y, PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COYP OF THE CALCULATION SHEET OF
THE AVERAGE EMOLUMENTS DURING THE LAST
10 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE RETIREMENT OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM PPO OF THE
PETITIONER
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
