IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 29537 of 2002(N) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.PURUSHAN, EX.PNR NO.G/145796, PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE, MUTHUKULAM NORTH P.O., VIA. MUTHUKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER ROADS, (EIC) SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN, RING ROAD, DELHI CANTONMENT, NEW DELHI-10. 3. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, RECORDS THE GREF, DIGHI CAMP P.O., PUNE-15. 4. THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE, ACCOUNTS (PENSION), DRAUPTHI GHAT, ALLAHABAD-21 (UP). ADV. SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA, ADDL.CGSC SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR G THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.29537/2002 ORDER ON CMP NO.50097/2002 IN OP NO.29537/2002 DISMISSED. 23/10/2009 SD/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1(a) : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14/12/98 ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE PETITIONER. P1(b) : COPY OF REPLY DATED 03/12/1998 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIOENR BY THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE. P2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 25/3/88 RECEIVED BY the PETITIONER FROM THE RECORD OFFICE, GREF. P3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 7/9/98 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIOENR FROM THE RECORD OFFICE GREF. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 22/8/02 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIOENR FROM THE GREF RECORD, PUNE. P5 : COPY OF DISCHAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO HIM BY THE OIC, NER, GREF. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- O.P.No.29537 of 2002 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he was enrolled in the 2nd respondent's office on 20/09/1969 as Pioneer. According to him, while he was engaged in the construction of a border road leading to Burmah, consequent to an accident suffered, he sustained serious injuries and fracture on his left leg. As a result of this, he was discharged from service on 31/05/1971 on being degraded to Medical Category IV by a Medical Board. At the time of discharge, he says that he was paid only an amount of Rs.3,398.60 (Rupees three thousand three hundred ninety eight and paise sixty only) as compensation. Thereafter, he made Ext.P1 series of representations for sanctioning disability pension, which were turned down by Ext.P2, and it was thereupon that this writ petition is filed. Reason stated for rejecting his claim is that he did not have the sufficient service to make him eligible for disability pension. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is OP No.29537/2002 -2- stated that the petitioner was appointed on 20/09/1969, and was discharged from service on 31/05/1971. It is stated that since then more than 35 years have lapsed, and the service and medical documents of the petitioner have already been destroyed on completion of the mandatory retention period of 10 years. According to the respondents, under the Central Civil Service Pension Rules 1972, for grant of invalid pension, one should have rendered service for a period not less than 10 years. Admittedly, the petitioner do not satisfy this condition. It is also their case that there is no provision existing for grant of disability pension to GREF personnel, as they are not governed by the provisions of the pension regulations applicable to Army. According to the respondents, at the time when the petitioner discharged, he was covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the eligible compensation of Rs.3,398.60 has already been paid. In view of the above, respondents submit that the petitioner is not eligible for any further benefit. Admittedly, the petitioner was discharged from service way back in 1970. By laps of more than 3½ decades, if the respondents OP No.29537/2002 -3- have destroyed the records, they cannot be faulted. Going by the materials available, and in view of the regulations that are applicable, the petitioner cannot say that he is entitled to either invalid pension or disability pension. If so, the orders rejecting the petitioner's request cannot be interfered with. This original petition fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg