Kerala High Court
J.Regi Kumar vs Union Of India on 8 November, 2024
WP(C) No.9435/2017 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
Friday, the 8th day of November 2024 / 17th Karthika, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017(D)
PETITIONER:
J.REGI KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, (CT/GD 941163385), AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.JABAMONY, VETTUVILAI VEEDU, MALAICODE, EDAICODE P O, KANYAKUMARI
DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, CGO COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110003,
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTHERN SECTOR, CENTRAL RESERVE
POLICE FORCE, ROAD NO.10C, JUBILI HILLS POST, HYDERABAD -33.
4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE
POLICE FORCE, PALLIPPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695316.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to direct the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P7
representation immdediately, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S.B.HARISH KUMAR & K.R.RENJU Advocates for the petitioner, DEPUTY
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA for respondent 1 and of SMT.DAYA SINDHU
SRIHARI, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL(B/O), SRI.O.M.SHALINA, CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL & SRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL for
respondents, the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.9435/2017 2/6
WP(C)No.9435 of 2017 1
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
--------------------------------------------
WP(C)No.9435 of 2017
--------------------------------------
Dated this the day of 8th November 2024
ORDER
The petitioner started service as a Constable with CRPF in the year
1994. He availed a leave for five days during 2011, but could not rejoin
on account of certain criminal cases in which he got involved, in relation
to a property dispute and on account of the subsequent orders passed
by the Magistrate Court. Stating that reason, the petitioner was
proceeded against and ultimately by Ext.P2 order, he was removed from
service w.e.f. 16.03.2013, on account of the afore unauthorized
absence.
2. The order at Ext.P2 was the subject matter of challenge
before this Court and by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court found that there
was no need to have removed the petitioner from service, since the
petitioner could not rejoin on account of valid reasons. Therefore, this
Court, also noticing the fact, that the petitioner by himself had reported
that he got entangled in a criminal case, directed the penalty of removal
from service to be changed as "compulsory retirement". The directions
in the afore judgment at Clause No. 3 of Paragraph 9 to the effect that
the petitioner would also be entitled for all service benefits is also to be
noticed, if otherwise eligible.
3. The directions in Ext.P3 stood implemented by Ext.P5 with
reference to the provisions of Rule 40 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. The
petitioner was also issued with the pension payment order as evidenced
by Ext.P5 wherein, the pension was calculated at Rs.3,770/-, however,
without providing the details of calculation to arrive at the afore figure.
Though the petitioner sought for an identity card, the said prayer stood
rejected by Ext.P6, essentially relying on certain standing orders issued
in that regard.
4. I have heard Sri. B.Harish Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. Daya Sindhu Srihari, the learned Central Government
Counsel for the respondents herein.
5. It is seen that the respondents while filing their counter
affidavit, has given the details of the calculation to arrive at the
retirement pension of Rs.3,770/- as stated in Ext.P5. Upon receipt of the
afore details, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, with specific
reference to a similar calculation made in respect of an employee, who
was removed from service like the petitioner herein, from CRPF itself
producing the same as Ext.P8.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
calculation as regards pensions payable with reference to those who
have been compulsorily retired and the provisions of Rule 40 of CCS
Pension Rules ought to have been made in the same fashion as done in
Ext.P8. The petitioner in Paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit, has made a
calculation of the eligible pension as under: -
"As per the same, the calculation for Pension is (Number of
years of service/20)* average emoluments or last pay) =
17/20*11310*50/100 = 0.85*5655=4842/-"
The afore calculation, has not been controverted by the respondents
herein.
7. The learned Central Government Counsel points out that the
calculation was made with reference to the provisions of Central Civil
Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981.
8. If the respondents have a case that the calculation made by
the petitioner as above is not correct, the details of the calculation with
reference to the provisions under which the calculation was effected by
the respondents are also to be provided in the statement.
9. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the
respondents have to come on record with reference to the afore
calculation in Paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit.
10. Therefore, I direct the competent among respondents to file a
statement/affidavit with reference to the afore calculation provided by
the petitioner, in tune with Ext.P8, as also the provisions of Rule 40 of
CCS Pension Rules, 1972, within a period of two weeks.
Post on 03.12.2024.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ANA
08-11-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9435/2017
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 16/3/13
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 1/6/2015 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 19/5/2016 ALONG WITH
PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DTD 9/6/2016
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 3/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 30/1/2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8 A true copy of the relevant rule along with the method
of calculation adopted by the CRPF
08-11-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
