S.Mani vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 14424 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 10966 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

         S.MANI
         AGED 41 YEARS
         (88009689-ASI/RM), S/O.S.SUNDARARAJ, RESIDING AT TC
         39/1696(3), NANDU BHAVAN, MANACAUD P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.

          BY ADV SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR



RESPONDENTS:

    1     UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
          AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110 010.

    2     THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BSF
          MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FORCE HEAD QUARTERS, LODHI
          ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

    3     THE COMMANDANT
          41 BATTALION BSF, MAHESPOUR, MIRAUL P.O., WEST
          BENGAL - 733 130.

    4     THE DIRECTOR (PAD)
          PAD BSF, 2ND FLOOR, C WING, PUSHPA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI
          - 110 062.

    5     THE CHIEF MANAGER
          STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CENTRALIZED PENSION
          PROCESSING CENTRE, VAZHUTHACADU,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
         SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10966 OF 2016            2

                               JUDGMENT

At the time when this writ petition was filed

in the year 2016, the petitioner - who is stated

to have worked as a Constable/Radio Mechanic at

Jammu and Kashmir in the services of the Boarder

Security Force - alleged that respondents were

attempting to recover money from him illegally

through Ext.P5 and sought that it be interdicted.

He also had a case that, even though he was

entitled to disability pension, said benefit had

not been given; thus praying that respondents 1

to 4 be directed to sanction and disburse the

said benefit from the date of his discharge from

service, within a time frame to be fixed by this

Court.

2. When this case was called today,

Shri.B.Harish Kumar, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, submitted that the relief

sought for by his client based on Ext.P5 and for

sanction of disability pension are no longer

relevant because this has been acceded to by the

respondent. He, however, submitted that his

client has serious objections as to the

quantification of the pensionary benefits and

therefore, prayed that this Court look into that

matter and issue appropriate orders.

3. I am afraid that this Court is

incompetent to consider the correctness of the

quantum of pension now granted to the petitioner,

since it requires an assessment of facts and

documents, which this Court is proscribed from

doing, while acting under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

4. At this time, Shri.Suvin R.Menon, learned

Central Government Counsel, submitted that if the

petitioner has any objection as regards the

quantification of his pensionary benefits, he

must approach the 4th respondent with an

appropriate representation and that this will

then be considered by the said Authority

appropriately.

Taking note of the afore submissions and

since I find favour with it, I order this writ

petition allowing liberty to the petitioner to

approach the 4th respondent with an appropriate

representation within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

and if this is so done, said Authority will

consider the same, after affording an opportunity

of being heard to the petitioner - either

physically or through video conferencing - and

will issue appropriate orders thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

four months thereafter.

I clarify that, if, for any event, the 4 th

respondent is not the competent Authority, then

the said Officer will forward the representation

of the petitioner to the Authority having

jurisdiction and the directions herein will apply

to the said Authority with the same rigour.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/14.7

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10966/2016

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/07/1999 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL BOARD PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH OPINION OF THE BOARD ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DATED 08/01/2001 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FORCE.

EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 16/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 22/09/2015 ALONG WITH THE PPO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT ANNEXURE

EXT.R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PAD/29-

61144(41)PN-II/BSF/2016 DATED 08.06.2016.