[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Udaya Kumar S.S. (Ex Ct/Gd 041578034) vs Union Of India on 3 December, 2025
WA No.933 of 2025
1
2025:KER:93069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 933 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2025 IN WP(C) NO.9565
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
UDAYA KUMAR S.S. (EX CT/GD 041578034),
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. M. SADASIVAN PILLAI, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,
NOW RESIDING AT 'PADINJARE PUTHUPPALLY VEEDU', SARAYU
NAGAR-145, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691002
BY ADV SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
(PENSIONS), DIRECTORATE CRPF, CGO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110003
3 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NORTHERN SECTOR, CRPF, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066
4 THE DIG (P),
GROUP CENTER, CRPF, AJMEER, RAJASTHAN-305005.
5 THE PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
GOVT. OF INDIA, TRIKOOT II COMPLEX, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2025, THE
COURT ON 03.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.933 of 2025
2
2025:KER:93069
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 17.02.2025 passed in
WP(C) No.9565/2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of
the Writ Petition by granting some reliefs.
Facts:
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was
recruited as Constable (General duty) in CRPF on 31.03.2004. The
appellant was diagnosed with Inter Vertebral Disc Prolapses L4-5 with
Left S1 Radiculopathy in the year 2005 and was invalidated and put out
of service with effect from 24.01.2010. The appellant claimed extra-
ordinary pension under the CCS(Extraordinary Pension) Rules which
was denied to him. Aggrieved by the said decision of the authorities,
denying the invalid/disability Pension under the Rules, the appellant
approached this Court in WP(C) No.32856/2010. The Writ Petition was
allowed vide judgment dated 22.07.2015 by which the communication
denying the pension was quashed. This Court has directed the
respondents to quantify the amount due to the appellant and disburse
2025:KER:93069
the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
the judgment. In compliance, the respondents passed Ext.P8 order
dated 18.10.2016 and the disability pension was sanctioned under the
old rules and arrears of Rs.10,59,682/- was found to be payable. The
PPO was modified vide Ext.P9. In the meanwhile, the appellant got
married in the year 2017 and thereafter moved the authorities to
include the name of his newly wedded wife as his nominee. The request
of the appellant was declined on the ground that the Software which
has been put in place after commencement of the New Pension Scheme
does not accept the nomination. The payment can only be made to one
person on one PPO number. As a precautionary measure, the appellant
wanted to insert the name of his wife in the PPO since, if the pensioner
dies, the dependent wife will not get the Family Pension on the same
PPO number. Admittedly, the appellant was sanctioned pension under
the old pension scheme.
Appellant Contention:
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
though the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to submit the
requisite papers for getting the nomination entered, for the purpose of
2025:KER:93069
generating new PPO in favor of his newly wedded wife, but has not
declared that the appellant would be entitled to get his wife nominated
for the purpose of getting family pension in case such eventuality
arises in future. Hence, this Writ Appeal.
Respondents' Contentions:-
4. Per contra, the respondent Union of India opposed the
prayer and submitted that instead of complying with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has approached this Court in
Writ Appeal. The learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to
submit the paper in respect of his wife for the purpose of being
nominated and to generate a new PPO number in her favor, no fault
can be found with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The
Writ Appeal being without any substance deserves to be dismissed.
Discussion and Analysis:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The reason assigned for not nominating the wife of
the appellant is that the system/software does not accept the
nomination cannot be a ground to deny the nomination of the wife.
The learned Single Judge ought to have held that the wife of the
2025:KER:93069
appellant is entitled for nomination in accordance with law. As such,
the contention that software is not updated to register the name or
accept nomination cannot be a ground for refusal. Accordingly, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified as under:
"The appellant is directed to submit the relevant
papers in respect of nomination of his wife for
generating new PPO in her favour within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. If
the necessary papers are submitted, the respondent
authorities are directed to make necessary
arrangements to nominate the wife of the appellant
for the purpose of generating new PPO in respect of
Family Pension, in case eventuality arises. The said
exercise be done within three months thereafter."
With the aforesaid modification, this Writ Appeal stands finally
disposed of. No order as to costs.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
Nsd
