Allowed

K.Venkittaraman v. Indian Air Force Benevelant Fund Associa

Kerala HC12 Nov 2010WA/1002/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal concerns the eligibility of a nonagenarian World War II veteran for monthly maintenance under a welfare scheme. The Court allowed the appeal, declaring the appellant entitled to benefits retroactively from the scheme's inception, while negating liability for interest.

What did the court decide?

Appellant declared entitled to monthly maintenance w.e.f. 01.01.2000; respondents directed to compute dues and disburse within two months; no interest to be paid by respondents.

K.Venkittaraman Vs Indian Air Force… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932

¶6

WA.No. 1002 of 2010()

¶7

---------------------

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28060/2007 Dated 12/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT:

¶9

¶10

K. VENKITTARAMAN, S/O LATE KRISHNAMOORTHY, FLAT NO. S - 1, ANNAPOORNA APARTMENTS, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

INDIAN AIR FORCE BENEVELANT FUND ASSOCIATION UNDER AIR HEAD QUARTERS NON PUBLIC FUNDS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, AFGIS BUILDING, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI - 10

¶15

CHIEF OF AIR STAFF. AIR HEAD QUARTERS (VAYU BHAVAN), RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI.

¶16

ASSISTANT PROVOST MARSHAL,

¶17

29 AIR FORCE PROVOST AND SECURITY UNIT, AKKULATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

AIR OFFICER - IN - CHARGE,

¶19

AIR FORCE RECORD OFFICE, SUBROTO PARK,

¶20

NEW DELHI.

¶21

THE DIRECTOR,

¶22

REGIONAL CENTRE, ECHS, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI

¶23

ADV. MR. T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

W.A No. 1002 OF 2010

Dated, this the 12^th day of November, 2010

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Ramachandra Menon J.

¶32

The appellant, a nonagenarian and a participant in the IInd World War, was medically invalidated on 29.09.1945; shortly after joining the service on 05.04.1943. In spite of submitting various applications for granting the service benefits under different heads, the request was not being positively dealt with, allegedly for the fact that the appellant did not have the requisite qualifying service for getting such benefits. In the said circumstances, he approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition with the following prayers :

¶33

i. to issue a writ of certiorari or other writ or order or direction calling for the records and quash Exts. P2 and P3. ii. to issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the medical facility under the ECHS or any other scheme extended to the Ex-servicemen.

¶34

iii. to declare that the petitioner is entitled to the monthly maintenance for the world war II veterans under the Welfare Scheme or any other type of pension atleast disability pension.

¶35

iv. to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents to extend the medical facility to

¶36

W.A No. 1002 of 2010

¶37

: 2 :

¶38

the petitioner under the ECHS or any other scheme and to sanction monthly maintenance at the applicable rate to the petitioner from the date of its introduction with arrears. v. to grant any type of Special Pension or Disability Pension vi. to issue such other further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶39

The claim was vehementally opposed from the part of the respondents. After considering the facts and figures, the learned Single Judge held, with regard to the claim for granting the medical facility, that, it was not liable to be entertained in so far as the petitioner happened to be medically invalidated and was not eligible for the benefits as per the relevant provisions of the Scheme. With regard to the claim for the benefit under a separate Scheme, known as ExServicemen Contributory Health Scheme, it was observed that, as per the said Scheme, only a 'pensioner' was eligible for the benefit. Since the Writ Petitioner was admittedly not a pensioner, the said claim was also negated.

¶40

The remaining issue was with regard to the eligibility for granting monthly maintenance under a particular Scheme evolved by the Indian Air Force for providing such benefit @ `1500/- p.m. (or at such other rate as on date) to all IInd World War veterans who are not in receipt of any pension. This also was objected from the part of the

¶41

W.A No. 1002 of 2010

¶42

: 3 :

¶43

respondents, contending that, the petitioner was having a higher annual income.

¶44

The petitioner contended that he was having only an annual income of 3,600/-, while the annual income was wrongly fixed as 11,28,000/- (inclusive of salary of his two grown up sons). After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge held that, the stand taken by the respondents was not correct or proper and that the annual income of the petitioner ought not to have been fixed reckoning the income of the grown up sons of the petitioner. Accordingly, a declaration was made that the petitioner was eligible to get monthly maintenance as provided under the Scheme. Ext. P2 was quashed and the respondents were directed to compute the arrears from January, 2007 and to disburse the same within three months. The appellant is aggrieved of restricting the benefit w.e.f. January 2007, and contends in the appeal for granting the same w.e.f. the date of introduction of the Scheme i.e. from 01.01.2000.

¶45

The factual position as to the eligibility of the writ petitioner to obtain the benefit under the monthly maintenance scheme stands concluded; in so far as the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge has not been subjected to challenge from the part of the respondents. The only question is, whether the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to

¶46

W.A No. 1002 of 2010

¶47

: 4 :

¶48

have the benefit only w.e.f January, 2007 (as Ext. P1 application was preferred only in 2007) or from the date of the commencement of the said Scheme.

¶49

It is the admitted case that, the writ petitioner could not submit the necessary application immediately when the Scheme was introduced; more so since he was finding it very difficult to make the both ends meet, by virtue of his advanced age (having crossed 80 years when the Scheme was notified in the year, 2000) and the ailments, being a person medically invalidated from the service. Further, it is stated that there was no adequate publicity with regard to the said Scheme. The Scheme itself is an enabling provision to grant the benefits as a part of 'welfare measure' to the soldiers/participants in the IInd World War, who are having no pension at all. As such, the eligibility to the said Scheme ought to have been interpreted in a larger and liberal manner. That apart, since the eligibility stands settled, the amount payable w.e.f. the date of introduction of the Scheme was lying at the hands of the respondents till date, generating interest. The lapses on the part of the writ petitioner in applying for and obtaining the benefit on time has in fact adversely effected only him, who had to lead a miserable life, without any support. Since, the Scheme for monthly maintenance came into operation w.e.f. 01.01.2000, we find it fit and

¶50

W.A No. 1002 of 2010

¶51

: 5 :

¶52

proper to extend the benefit under the said Scheme to the appellant w.e.f the said date itself. However, we hold that the respondents shall never be mulcted with any liability to pay interest in respect of the arrears.

¶53

In the above circumstances, we declare that, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of monthly maintenance w.e.f. 01.01.2000. The eligible extent of dues in this regard shall be worked out and disbursed to the appellant, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and continue to effect payment of the monthly maintenance in terms of the Scheme.

¶54

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶55

J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶56

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶57

kmd

K.Venkittaraman v. Indian Air Force Benevelant Fund Associa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venkittaraman v. Indian Air Force Benevelant Fund Associa

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

B.Indira Devi Vs v.Vinod

Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut Vs Markazu Ssaquafathi Ssunniyya, Calicut

State of Krala and Others Vs Simon K.Francis and Others

C.v.Jose Vs Abhilash and Another

Praveen Kumar.P. Vs C.K.Abdul Salam

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax