High Court Kerala High Court

M.V.Thomas vs The Chairman on 8 November, 2006

Kerala High Court
M.V.Thomas vs The Chairman on 8 November, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18646 of 2005(T)


1. M.V.THOMAS, MANEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CHAIRMAN, THE LIFE INSURANCE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, PENSION CELL,

3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.SANTHAMMA ISSAC

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.EASWARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

 Dated :08/11/2006

 O R D E R
                         K.K. DENESAN, J.



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

                 W.P.(C)  No. 18646 OF 2005 T

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



               Dated this the 8th November, 2006



                          J U D G M E N T

After retirement from the Army, the petitioner was

sponsored through the soldier’s cell as well as the

Employment Exchange for job opportunity under the

respondents. He was offered an appointment. He joined

duty in November, 1995 in the establishment of the

respondents and retired from service on 31-3-2005. He

has not been granted pensionary benefits as he did not

have 10 years service under the respondents which is

the minimum period prescribed for the grant of pension.

The claim made by the petitioner for pension was turned

down by the respondents as seen from Exts. P1 and P2

orders.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has not sought for any relief directly

against Exts. P1 and P2 since he has moved the same

authority for a re-consideration of the earlier orders

by filing Ext. P4 representation before the Chairman of

the Corporation. The contention of the petitioner is

that the Corporation had accepted the option made by

WPC No. 18646/2006 -2-

the petitioner for pension and it may not fit in with

the principles of justice to go back from the earlier

stand taken by the Corporation.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by

the respondents maintaining the stand taken by them as

per Exts. P1 and P2.

4. It is unnecessary for this Court to consider

the contentions taken by the petitioner in the writ

petition or those by the respondents in the counter

affidavit since the limited relief prayed for by the

petitioner is for a direction to the 1st respondent to

consider Ext. P4 representation. I feel that the

relief thus prayed for can be granted in the facts and

circumstances of this case.

5. The writ petition is disposed of directing the

1st respondent to consider Ext. P4 and pass appropriate

orders within three months on the petitioner producing

a copy of the judgment.

K.K. DENESAN

JUDGE

jan/-