John.C vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 13740 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 281 OF 2015
PETITIONER:

           JOHN.C., AGED 65 YEARS,
           CHIRUMEL HOUSE,PERISSERY P.O, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA
           DISTRICT

           SRI.K.SHAJ
           SMT.ANJU MOHAN
           SRI.M.K.HARIPRIYESH
           SRI.RENJITH.R.NAIR
           SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
           SRI.SAJJU.S
           SRI.S.K.SUJITH KRISHNA
           SRI.S.VISHNU ARIKKATTIL


RESPONDENTS:

    1      UNION OF INDIA
           REPREESENTED BY THE SECRETRARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND
           JUSTICE, NEW DELHI 110010

    2      THE SECRETARY
           DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE (DEFENCE DIVISION), MINISTRY
           OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 110010

    3      THE SECRETARY
           MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
           110010

    4      0FFICE IN CHARGE
           EME RECORDS, EME RECORDS OFFICE, SECUNDERABAD 500021

    5      THE COMMANDANT
           509 ARMY BASE WORKSHOP, AGRA CANTONMENT, AGRA, UTTAR
           PRADESH, 282001

           SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 281 OF 2015

                                2


                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that

the official respondents be directed to grant him "short term

pension" for the period of service he had served in the Army

Base Workshop in Agra.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.Shaj,

argued this matter in great detail, including on the plea raised

by him with respect to the constitutionality Rule 26(1) of the

CCS (Pension) Rules and asserted that his client is entitled to

pension, at least compassionately, because his son is a

mentally challenged individual.

3. However, the learned Central Government counsel,

Sri.Jai Shankar V.Nair, countered the submissions of the

petitioner on its merits by saying that since he, admittedly, did

not have 20 years of qualifying service, which would have

alone entitled him to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules

1972, the consideration of the constitutional validity of Rule

26(1) of the said Rules would be unnecessary because the

petitioner would not be entitled to minimum pension, without WP(C) NO. 281 OF 2015

the said minimum qualifying service of 20 years.

4. Perhaps being alerted by the afore submissions, the

learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to

withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the

competent respondent with a representation seeking pension

on compassionate grounds.

In the afore circumstances, I allow the petitioner to

withdraw this writ petition, however, reserving liberty to him

to approach the competent respondent with an appropriate

representation seeking compassionate pension, and if this is

done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the

said respondent compassionately and with empathy, leading

to an appropriate order thereon without any avoidable delay.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu