Kerala High Court
Rohini Raja .S vs Union Of India on 23 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1346 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.20862
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
ROHINI RAJA .S
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O SHRI. K.SANKARAN, EX. COMMANDANT/CRPF, ILRA
NO.4813, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 'SREERAGAM', TRA-14, TC
40/3090, THIRUMALA , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE,,
PIN - 695006
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.SANJAY
SHRI.SANIL KUMAR G.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL/CRPF
BLOCK NO.1,CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110003
3 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL/CRPF
SOUTHERN ZONE HQRS, CHANDRAYANGUTTA, HYDERABAD,
TELANGANA STATE, PIN - 500005
4 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL/CRPF
SOUTHERN SECTOR, ROAD NO.10-C, JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE ,, PIN - 500033
5 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL/CRPF
KERALA KARNATAKA SECTOR, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA PIN :
560064
WA NO. 1346 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:44674
6 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL/CRPF
GROUP CENTRE, AVADI, TAMILNADU, PIN - 560065
7 CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICER,
CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE,(GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA), TRIKOOT-II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW
DELHI,, PIN - 110066
8 THE SECRETARY (PENSION),
DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONER'S WELFARE,
JANPATH BHAWAN, B WING, 8TH FLOOR ,NEW DELHI, PIN
- 110001
9 THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL/CRPF
SOUTHERN ZONE HEAD QUARTERS, HYDERABAD,
TELENGANA,, PIN - 508213
10 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL/CR & VIGILANCE,
BLOCK NO.1,CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI,,
PIN - 110003
11 P. MANOJ KUMAR
(COMMANDANT) (IO), 247 BN, CRPF GC BANGALORE,
YELAHANKA KARNATAKA ,, PIN - 560064
BY ADV SHRI.DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N.S., SENIOR
PANEL COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2025, THE COURT ON 23.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1346 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:44674
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
This appeal has been filed with a delay of 40 days.
Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support
of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that
sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence,
C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2025 to condone the delay is allowed.
2. The present intra-court appeal under Section 5
of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the order dated
24.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No.20862/2024, whereby the
learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty to
the appellant to approach the Telangana High Court, if he is so
advised, on the ground that earlier, he had already approached
the High Court of Telangana against the court of inquiry,
therefore, filing of second Writ Petition before this Court is wholly
unwarranted. It amounts to forum shopping and this Court cannot
permit such a course of action by a litigant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant
retired as a commandant in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
on 31.07.2022, having reached the age of superannuation. The
appellant had approached this Court in a Writ Petition seeking
writ of mandamus to pay the retiral dues and benefits and also to
WA NO. 1346 OF 2025
2025:KER:44674
quash the recovery of Rs.60,022/-. A court of inquiry was ordered
against the appellant and other CRPF personnel. The appellant
approached the High Court of State of Telangana at Hyderabad
by filing WP(C) No.27099/2016, challenging the order dated
23.05.2015 issued by the Additional Director General, South
Zone, CRPF, Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary. The appellant
also challenged the consequential order dated 03.07.2015 and
29.03.2016 issued by the DIGP, Group Center, CRPF directing him
to remit an amount of Rs.60,022/-. The Single Bench of the
Telangana High Court, vide its judgment dated 05.06.2023,
allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the court of inquiry and
the consequential orders. However, the respondents were given
liberty to proceed against the petitioner, if they so desired.
Thereafter, the respondents issued the charge sheet and also
ordered recovery.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the learned Single Judge misconstrued the relief claimed in
the Writ Petition before this Court inasmuch as the appellant had
claimed regular superannuation pension and other retiral
benefits in view of Ext.P9 and P11 judgments which have been
set aside by the Telangana High Court. The learned Single Judge
also erred in coming to the conclusion that the 2 nd Writ Petition
WA NO. 1346 OF 2025
2025:KER:44674
would not be maintainable before this Court since the appellant
had already approached the State of Telangana and relegated
him to avail the remedy before the High Court of Telangana.
Learned counsel submitted that since the appellant is a retired
person, therefore, he can file a Writ Petition in the State where
he permanently settles down after retirement. The appellant is a
resident of Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State. Therefore, this
High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition.
The learned Single Judge erred in holding that second Writ
Petition is not maintainable since the relief claimed before the
Telangana High Court was altogether different where the court of
enquiry proceedings and consequential orders were challenged
and the same were set aside.
5. In the present Writ Petition, the appellant is
seeking regular superannuation pension and other retiral benefits
to which he is entitled since as on date there is no disciplinary
proceedings pending against him. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought not to have
relegated the appellant to approach the Telangana High Court.
Learned counsel further submitted that during the time of the
court of inquiry and consequential orders, he was posted at
Telangana and was in service. Therefore, the jurisdiction lied with
WA NO. 1346 OF 2025
2025:KER:44674
the Telangana High Court. Presently, since he is already
superannuated, and settled in Thiruvananthapuram, the Writ
Petition would lie before this Court seeking altogether different
reliefs. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge deserves
to be set aside and the matter needs to be relegated to the
Single Judge to decide the same on merits.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned
Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant
ought to have approached the Telangana High Court inasmuch as
the Service records and the respondents under which the
appellant was working are based at Hyderabad. It would be
difficult for the Department to contest the case at Kochi before
the High Court of Kerala. Therefore, the order deserves no
interference. The Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard Sri.T.Sanjay, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Sri.Dayasindhu Sreehari N.S., learned
counsel for respondents 1 to 10.
8. On perusal of the prayer clause as well as the
relief granted by the Telangana High Court and the relief clause
in the present Writ Petition, both are altogether different.
Moreover, the appellant is already superannuated and settled at
WA NO. 1346 OF 2025
2025:KER:44674
Thiruvananthapuram. It is settled legal position that after
superannuation, an employee can file the Writ Petitions for
redressal of his grievance in the State where he is settled
permanently. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge
erred in relegating the appellant to approach the Telangana High
Court, if so advised. The order passed by the learned Single
Judge cannot be countenanced.
9. Accordingly, the judgment dated 24.03.2025 in
WP(C) 20862/2024 is hereby set aside. The Writ Petition is
relegated back to the learned Single Judge with a request to
decide the same afresh taking into consideration the fact that the
appellant is claiming the retiral dues and pension.
With the aforesaid, this Writ Petition is allowed to the
extent indicated herein above.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
Nsd
