Dismissed

P.Rajan v. Union of India

Kerala HC7 Oct 2010OP/19613/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an ex-serviceman retired from United India Insurance Company, filed a writ petition challenging a subsequent pay fixation circular. The Court noted the petitioner was already retired and had received benefits per the original scheme, thus disposing of the petition by confirming the original pay fixation.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed the original fixation of pay as per which the petitioner retired from service and declared that all service and retirement benefits shall be regulated accordingly.

P.Rajan Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

OP.No. 19613 of 2002(I) -----------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

P.RAJAN, S/O. P.KUMARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, SUB-STAFF, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CALICUT, RESIDING AT POOPPARAMBATH HOUSE, POST MAKKADA, CALICUT-673 617.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.R.SREERAJ SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SMT.T.M.RESHMY SMT.VINEETHA B.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶10

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS(INSURANCE DIVISION) NEW DELHI.

¶11

GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE BUILDING, CHURCH GATE, MUMBAI-400 020.

¶12

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600 014.

¶13

REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI-11.

¶14

ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER FOR R3

¶15

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P.No. 19613/2002

¶17

			APPENDIX
PETIT	IONER(S)	'EXHIBITS
P1.	COPY OF	THE CIRCULAR	BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P2.	COPY OF	THE CIRCULAR	DTD.19.7.91.
P3.	COPY OF	THE CLARIFIC	ATION LETTER DTD.5.9.1991.
P4.	COPY OF	THE LETTER D	TD.13.4.93 BY R3 TO R4.
P5. sdk+	COPY OF	THE JUDGMENT	IN O.P.No. 10215/1992 OF THIS COURT.

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

O.P.No. 19613 of 2002.

¶23

==================

¶24

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioner is an ex-serviceman, who was discharged from the Defence Service. Thereafter, he was re-employed in the 3^rd respondent company. The mode of fixation of pay on such reemployment is prescribed in Ext.P1 circular issued by the 2^nd respondent. Based on the same, the petitioner's pay had been fixed. But subsequently circulars were issued regarding such fixation contrary to each other. A writ petition filed by another employee challenging one of them was allowed by Ext.P5 judgment. The writ appeal filed against Ext.P5 judgment has also been dismissed. Another writ petition viz.,O.P.No.12010/1996, filed by another person in respect of the same subject matter is also stated to be disposed of. In view of the pendency of those proceedings and interim orders therein, the petitioner's pay had not been refixed to his detriment. Going by the age in the affidavit accompanying the original petition, the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs;

¶26

“i. to declare that paragraph 5 of Exhibit P2 circular is illegal, unconstitutional and ultravires and therefore, unenforceable against the petitioner.

¶27

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or n commanding the respondents 3 and 4 not to alter the pay fixation made in the case of the petitioner on his re-

¶28

o.p.19613/02 2

¶29

employment by enforcing paragraph 5 of Exhibit P2 Circular.”

¶30

No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. As

¶31

such, the averments of the petitioner in the original petition stand uncontroverted. Now that the petitioner has already retired from service and he has received his benefits in accordance with the original fixation, I dispose of this original petition confirming the original fixation of pay as per which he has retired from service and declaring that all service benefits and retirement benefits due to him shall be regulated in accordance with the original fixation of pay as per Ext.P1 circular.

¶32

sdk+

¶33

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

O.P.No. 19613 of 2002-I

¶39

==================

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

7^th October, 2010

P.Rajan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajan v. 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

Saji.S.U. Vs Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

T.K. Vanchi Vs Union of India

Mohamed Rafi Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.R.Bose Vs the Ksfdc

Mariyakutty Umma Vs Director of Panchayath

Ajakumar.K. Vs Kerala State Audio Visual & Reprographic