IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 16564 of 2001(V)
1. JOSEPH JUSTIN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.VIMALAN
For Respondent :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/01/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 16564 of 2001
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 20th January, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner who entered Indian Air Force on 24-6-1963 was
discharged from service on being found medically unfit for further
service. Petitioner’s request for disability pension was rejected by
Ext. P4 order dated 22-3-2000. The petitioner is seeking a direction
to the respondents to pay to the petitioner disability pension with
effect from 1-11-1966, which is the date of his discharge from the Air
Force. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“(a) To call for the records connect with this case;
(b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or
order commanding respondents herein to grant disability pension
to the petitioner with effect from 1-11-1966, the date of his
discharge from Air Force Service under the Rules.”
2. I have heard the learned Central Government Counsel
appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner filed the application for pension 33 years
after his discharge from service. The same has been rejected by Ext.
P4 stating thus:
“You were medically boarded out for the disease
“SCHIZOPHRENIA” on 01 Nov. 1966. The disease for which you
have been invalided out has not been accepted as attributable to or
aggravated by the service. Accordingly, your claim for disability
pension was rejected by the pension Sanctioning Authority i.e.
CCDA (P), Allahabad and the same was intimated to you.
It can be seen that almost 33 years have been elapsed from
the date of your discharge and relevant documents have been
destroyed after their retention for a stipulated period of 25 years.
With little information available with this office it is learned that
your representations have been replied by this office.”
The respondents cannot be expected to retain the service
O.P No. 16564/2001. -: 2 :-
records of the petitioner for 33 years. As such, the petitioner is guilty
of delay and laches. In fact, in somewhat similar circumstances, on
the ground of delay, similar claim has been rejected by this Court in
W.P(C) No. 17329/2005 by Ext. R2 judgment, which was confirmed
by the Division Bench in Ext. R3 judgment. In the said
circumstances, following those judgments, I hold that the petitioner
is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this original petition on
account of unexplained delay and laches for 33 years. Accordingly,
the original petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/