Kerala High Court
Satheeshchandran K vs Union Of India on 12 June, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023
PETITIONER(S)APPLICANT:
SATHEESHCHANDRAN K
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE KUMARA PILLAI,
14528373 H, HAVILDAR (RETIRED), CORPS OF EME,
NEELAKANDESHWARAM BHAVAN, DHANUVACHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695503
BY ADVS.
V.K.PRASAD
MUSTHAHAZIN K. MOHAMMED
JOSNA.C.F
RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE, EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
2 THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF
ARMY HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
3 THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION)
DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD, PIN - 211014
4 THE CHIEF RECORD OFFICER
EME RECORDS, SECUNDERABAD, TELENGANA, PIN - 500015
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
1. Petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment dated
27.06.2023 in O.A.No.14 of 2021 of Armed Forces Tribunal,
Regional Branch, filed against non-grant of Honorary Rank
of Naib Subedar after having served the Indian Army for a
period of twenty(26) years.
2. The brief facts in support of the aforementioned
claim are as under:
Petitioner was enrolled in the Army's Corps of EME on
23.03.1977 and retired on 31.03.2003 from 10 Corps Zonal
Workshop as Havildar. Character of the petitioner at the
time of release was assessed as 'exemplary' as evident from
Ext.P2. During his service, has several notable
accomplishments including the successful completion of
promotion cadre test and commendation for technical
professional excellence from Major General, EME, HQ
Western Command as per the commendation letter dated
25.10.2002 Ext.P5.
WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023
The service rules and conditions of the petitioner are
governed by the Defence Service Regulation (Army)
(hereinafter called 'DSR') and Clause 179(a) of the DSR
provides that step of Honorary rank on retirement with title
of honorary Subedar can be bestowed on JCOs who are
specially recommended by the Chief of Army staff as
deserving the honor and Section 180 of DSR outlines the
eligibility criteria. Petitioner squarely fell in that
recommendation and provisions, and for claiming the
aforementioned benefits submitted an application for
conferring of honorary rank which was not considered and
thereafter, on 02.11.2012 received the information from the
4th respondent-Chief Record Officer, EME Records (Ext.P7),
that his name was forwarded/recommended to concerned
Comd Headquarters on the occasion of Independence Day,
2003, but did not come in merit and therefore, the honorary
rank was not granted. Ext.P7 representation was submitted
and ultimately, was left high and dry as having
discriminated for, the respondents granted certain benefits
to other favorites.
WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023
3. Respondents do not deny that petitioner had a
unblemished record and name was sent for grant of
honorary rank of Naib Risldar/Naib Subedar on retirement
within one year of becoming non effective and the
petitioner- applicant was making all the criteria but did not
making the merit drawn out by IHQ of Ministry of Defence
(Army)/CW-2.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and appraised the paper book.
5. The order of Tribunal rejecting the aforementioned
prayer by accepting the contention do not suffer from any
illegality for the reason that the honorary ranks are granted
to the person who had shown excellent performance and for
that the department prepares a seniority-cum-merit list.
However, there are very few vacancies but more aspirants
for the said grant. Petitioner has not been able to make out
a case of discrimination, on the contrary the stand of the
respondents had been that the selection was purely on
merit-cum-seniority list drawn by the ceremonial and
welfare director based on all India merit prepared amongst
WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023
army persons. It is not the case of the petitioner that his
name was not forwarded. In fact it was forwarded but was
not found in the merit list as there were less vacancies. It is
not a vested right but only a grant with absolute right and
relevant merit has to be considered.
No ground for interference is made out. Writ petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
nak
WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42758/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.06.2023 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL,
REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI.
Exhibit 2 A TRUE COPY OF CORPS OF EME RECORDS.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER
(PPO) .
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF
SERVICE BOOK OF PETITIONER SHOWING HIS
SERVICE AND PERSONAL DETAILS.
Exhibit 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMENDATION LETTER
DATED 25.10.2022.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
02.11.2012 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED LETTER
WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF OA 14/2021 WITHOUT
ANNEXURES.
