IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2019 of 2006(B)
1. V. VISWANATHAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL,
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
4. THE COMMANDER,
5. THE OFFICE COMMANDING,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :26/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.A. NO. 2019 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH , 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Appellant retired from the service of the General Reserve
Engineering Force (GREF), which is a Government of India Department.
During his service, he was posted to Bhutan on 22.8.1996 and he continued
there till 5.5.2000. According to the appellant, though he was entitled to
Bhutan Compensatory Allowance it was declined to him during his service
and after retirement. The petition made by him for payment of such
allowance was declined by Ext.P1. In the first round of litigation, this Court
quashed the proceedings and directed the concerned authority to consider
the appellant’s claim. Consequent to that, Ext.P6 order was passed again
rejecting his claim. The reason for denial of the said benefit is that
appellant, though posted in Bhutan, was posted to an area where the
employees of ‘GREF’ were not entitled to Bhutan Compensatory Allowance.
He challenged Ext.P6 order in the writ petition which was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge against which this appeal has been preferred.
WA 2019/2006
2
2. Learned Single Judge referred to the contentions stated in the
counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:
“The statements made in paras 5 and 6 are not
true and correct. The petitioner is trying to mislead
the Hon’ble Court by making such false statements.
The true facts are submitted as follows: He was
neither posted to BCA area nor served in Bhutan
during his stay in 504 SS & TC, as the unit
Headquarters and offices were located in Jaigaon
(WB). He was posted to Non-BCA area by GREF
Records, since he did not fulfill required criteria for
BCA posting being a low medical category.”
3. The learned Single Judge accepted the factual position stated by
the respondents that the appellant was not posted to BCA area and he was
stationed in Jaigaon (WB). Since appellant did not controvert the factual
position by filing any reply affidavit, the learned Single Judge went by the
facts stated in the counter affidavit and proceeded to decide the matter.
Further, it was found from Ext.R1(e) representation filed by the appellant
himself that he was posted in a NPCA area, which obviously shows that in
the services in Bhutan, there were two categories of areas – one where the
persons employed would get Bhutan Compensatory Allowance and the
other area persons employed will not be entitled to such allowance, which
is called ‘Non Bhutan Compensatory Allowance Area’.
WA 2019/2006
3
4. Counsel appearing for the appellant before us raised the very same
contentions as were raised before the learned Single Judge. So far as the
factual position remains the same that the appellant was posted in NBCA
area, we find no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Single
Judge. Appellant could not also state the name of any person posted
similarly along with him in the NBCA area, where such person was
granted Bhutan Compensatory Allowance during his service or after his
retirement. In view of the factual position stated, we do not find any merit
in the writ appeal and we therefore dismiss the same.
P.R. RAMAN,
JUDGE)
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(JUDGE).
knc/-