IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 19599 of 2002(G)
1. NO.850787191 CT/GD J. RENKAN,
... Petitioner
2. CHANDRALEKHA W/O.J.RENKAN, DO.DO.
Vs
1. COMMANDANT, 65 BN CRPF., SHILLONG
... Respondent
2. ADDL. DIGP,GROUP CENTRE, CRPF,
3. PENSION AUDIT OFFICER,
4. DIRECTOR GENERAL,CRPF, NEW DELHI-3
5. ADDL. DIG., CRPF.,GROUP CENTRE,
6. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTE3D BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
For Respondent :SRI.PRINCE CHAKRAMPILLY, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
O.P. No.19599 of 2002
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 23rd day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The 1st petitioner was working as a Constable under the
respondents since 1985. He was medically invalidated out of
service in 2001. It was following the finding that he was suffering
from mental illness/paranoid schizophrenia.
2. In this original petition, the first prayer is to direct
refund of Rs.61,978/- recovered from the petitioners as per Ext.P7,
quashing the said order. In fact, the 4th prayer is to direct refund of
the amount recovered by Ext.P7. Therefore, these two prayers are
considered together. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by
the 5th respondent, it has been stated that out of the amount
recovered, Rs.58,798/- has already been redrawn and paid to the
petitioners on 24/10/2002. In so far as the balance is concerned,
the respondent has stated in the affidavit that they are awaiting
certain documents from the petitioners, and that on receipt of the
documents, the amount will be paid. Therefore, this undertaking in
O.P.No.19599/2002
-2-
the counter affidavit, should satisfy this grievance of the petitioners,
and it will be open to the petitioners to comply with the
documentary formalities, in which event, the amount shall be paid
to them.
3. The 2nd prayer is to quash Ext.P8 in so far as it directs
that the persons like the 1st petitioner will not be eligible for
rehabilitation as provided therein. True, a reading of Ext.P8
discloses that the Scheme of rehabilitation does not apply to
persons, who are discharged on the ground of mental illness. The
scheme as reflected in Ext.P8 is a policy matter, and if the policy
maker has chosen not to treat those who are discharged on reasons
of mental illness eligible, definitely, the same cannot be said to be
arbitrary and hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, I see no
substance in the prayer to quash Ext.P8.
4. The 3rd prayer in the original petition is to direct the
respondents to ensure that the 1st petitioner’s monthly pension and
medical allowances is reimbursed. A reading of paragraph 9 of the
counter affidavit shows that pension has already been released and
O.P.No.19599/2002
-3-
that the petitioners can receive the same from their Bank. In so far
as the medical allowances is concerned, the 5th respondent submit
that the same has been paid. In fact, this Court itself had passed an
order dated 13/08/2002 directing the respondents to pay monthly
pension and medical allowances to the 1st petitioner as ordered in
Ext.P6. In view of this, this prayer is also satisfied.
Irrespective of the payments thus made, it is clarified that in
case, the petitioners have any surviving grievances, or that any
further payment is remaining outstanding or withheld, it is directed
that it will open to the petitioners to make an appropriate
application to the 5th respondent, in which event, the 5th respondent
shall take necessary action for redressing the legal grievance of the
petitioners.
This original petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg