Dismissed

R.Vijaya Mohanan Nair v. the Union of India

Kerala HC3 Jan 2008WP(C)/287/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an ex-serviceman, challenged the reduction of his liquor quota from six to four bottles per month, claiming arbitrariness and violation of Article 14. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that such alterations fall within administrative wisdom and policy of the Armed Services without statutory infraction warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it was bereft of merit with no grounds for interfering in the administrative policy regarding liquor quotas.

R.Vijaya Mohanan Nair Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 287 of 2008(H)

PETITIONER:

R.VIJAYA MOHANAN NAIR, KOCHUVEETTIL KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM, KERALA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI.

¶14

THE QUARTER MASTER GENERAL, DY.DTS. GENERAL CANTEEN SERVICES, ARMY HEAD QUARTERS, ROOM NO.15-L-1 BLOCK, CHURCH ROAD, NEW DELHI.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN, CGSC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. GIRI, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 287 of 2008

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3^rd day of January,2008

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He was discharged from

¶22

the regular Air Force Service on 31-1-1985 after 15 years of service. According to him, when he was discharged from service, the liquor quota that was allotted to serving and retired personnel was six bottles per month. But, this was later revised under Ext.P1 order to four bottles for retired personnel. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 representation before the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. This was directed to be considered by the Government under Ext.P4 judgment. Ultimately by Ext.P5 order the 1^st respondent rejected the representation. Ext.P5 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reduction in the liquor quota for Ex-servicemen brought about under Ext.P1 did not correspond with similar reduction in the case of different categories of service personnel. He, therefore, contends that the reduction is arbitrary.

¶24

WPC 287/08

¶25

¶26

Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution obviously cannot be invoked in relation to what is only a perquisite or facility offerded to service personnel. It is then contended that a higher consumption of liquor is injurious to health and therefore Government ought to have taken steps to reduce the consumption of serving personnel also. Obviously, apart from the fact that there is contradiction in the stand taken by the petitioner as rightly identified in Ext.P6, liquor quota to different categories of service personnel are matters which fall within the wisdom and policy of the administrative personnel and policy makers in the Armed Service. There is no statutory infraction or constitutional infirmity warranting interference in the matter. At any rate having gone through Ext.P6, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same.

¶27

Hence, the writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed.

V. GIRI, JUDGE.

WPC 287/08

mn.

R.Vijaya Mohanan Nair v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vijaya Mohanan Nair v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Shyamala Vs the State of Kerala

Mohammed Salih.P Vs K.S.E.B.

Boby Jacob Vs Kerala State Public Service Commission

M.Sarojini Vs the Director, Social Welfare Department

Samuel Mories Vs K.P.S.C.

K.G.Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala