Dismissed

P.K.Vasu v. the Union of India

Kerala HC19 Dec 2011WP(C)/5833/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that as the State Government had rejected the petitioner's application for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, the remedy was to challenge that order, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the petitioner for not serving the order.

P.K.Vasu Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 5833 of 2006(T)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. P.K. VASU, PUTHENVELIYIL, CMC 28, ARTHUNKAL ROAD, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

#ADDL. P2 IMPLEADED

¶11

2. JANAKI, W/O. LATE VASU, PUTHENVELIYIL, C M C 28, ARTHANGAL ROAD, CHERTHALA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

# ADDL. PETITIONER 2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 14/12/2011 IN D.A 19826/11

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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

¶16

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶17

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, LOK NAIK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI.

¶18

3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶20

R1,R2 BY ADV.JOHN VARGHESE, ASCI

¶21

V.K. MOHANED YOUSEFF

¶22

R3,R4 BY SRI. MOBLE MATHEW, GOVT. PLEADER.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC.NO.5833/2006

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶28

P1:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22/9/98 UNDER SWATANTRATA SAINIK SAMMAN PENSION SCHEME.
P2:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
P3:	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.7.1998 ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA.
P4:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.7.1981 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHERTHALAI.
P5:	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SUFFERING BY ABSCONDENCE/INTERNMENT/EXTERNMENT DATED 10.9.1998 ISSUED BY V.K. VISWANATHAN.
P6:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.6.1987 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P7:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.4.1998 ISSUED FROM THE S UPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL JAIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P8:	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SUFFERING BY ABSCONDENCE/ INTERNMENT/ EXTERNMENT DATED 10.8.1988 ISSUED BY V.K. KARUNAKARAN.
P9:	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.7.1981 ISSUED BY P.K. CHANDRANANDAN.

¶29

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURE:

¶30

ANNEXURE R3(A): COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.09.2007. ANNEXURE R3(B): COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN SC NO. 9/123 IN PE NO. 10/122.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

S.SIRI JAGAN

- - - - W.P.(C)NO. 5833 OF 2006

¶36

- - - - Dated this the 19^th day of December 2011

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by non consideration of Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. By order dated 01/12/2011, I directed the Government Pleader as follows:

¶39

“The Government Pleader shall see that a copy of the order passed by the State Government on the application of the petitioner along with a copy of the judgment in PE 10/1122 referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent is produced before this Court on 14/12/2011. Post as the 1^st item in the weekly list commencing 12/12/2011.”

¶40

The Government Pleader has filed a memo today along with a copy of order dated 26/09/2007 stated to have been filed rejecting the claim of the petitioner and forwarding the papers to the Union Government not recommending the case of the petitioner for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. In view of the said order, the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the said order appropriately. Without prejudice to that right the writ petition is dismissed. Since the State Government has not served that order on the petitioner, I direct the State Government to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-as costs to the petitioner.

¶41

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶42

STU

¶43

¶44

P.K.Vasu v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Vasu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.C.James Vs Kairali Chits and Financers

Kumari Lekshmi.T.S. Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

A.B.Kuttan Vs T.K.Babu

P.Ashokan Vs State of Kerala

Sarath P.Kariyam Vs Intelligence Inspector

Asharaf Vs Thrissur District Co-Op.Bank Ltd.