IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 29160 of 2006(U)
1. PREMARAJAN M., S/O. LATE KOMU NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF,
3. THE GOC-IN-C,
4. THE COMMANDANT,
5. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, RECORDS,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :27/02/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J.
-----------------------------
WP(C)No. 29160 OF 2006
-----------------------------
Dated this the 27th February, 2007.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2006 while
holding the post of Subedar Major. According to him a
Junior Commissioned Officer of the rank of Subedar and
Subedar Major can be granted honorary ranks of Lieutenants
and Captains on active list on two occasions i.e on
Republic day and Independence day falling in the last year
of their service by His Excellency the President of India
on the basis of the recommendation of higher authorities
based on merit and after due assessment following the
procedure laid down in the Army Regulations as also by the
Army Headquarters. The petitioner feels aggrieved because
he was not considered for the grant of honorary ranks of
Lieutenants and Captains. He sought for a direction in
this writ petition to the respondents to grant him the
honorary rank of Lieutenants and Captains from 26th January
2006 with all the benefits including pay and allowances and
other terminal benefits.
2. I do not find any provision of law which confers
any vested right in the petitioner to say that the
respondents have got a duty to confer such honorary ranks
on any Subeddar or Subedar Major in the last year
WPC 29160/2006 2
immediately preceding his retirement. The conferment of
such honorary ranks is absolutely discretionary and based
on assessment made by the concerned authorities. The
petitioner does not appear to have approached the
authorities if he has got a genuine grievance for the
redressal of such grievance. It is trite that a writ of
mandamus will issue only when a right is vested in the
person who demands and a duty is cast on the respondents
to consider such demand. Neither is present here. It is
also trite that only when a demand is made and that demand
is either not considered or rejected the party concerned
need invoke the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the
Constitution of India. That element also is lacking here.
3. I dispose of this writ petition observing that if
the petitioner files a representation before the
appropriate authority viz., the second respondent, the same
shall be considered and decision taken by that authority in
accordance with law, as early as possible.
K.K.DENESAN
Judge
jj