IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19241 of 2005(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- EASWARAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 45, S/O.M.KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, RESIDING AT U.N.HOUSE, KANNUR. BY ADVS. MR.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN MR.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. COMMODORE-PENSION, BUREAU OF SAILORS, CHEETALI CAMP, MANKHURD, MUMBAI-400 088. 3. COMMANDER, STAFF LOGISTICS OFFICER FOR FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI. ADV. MR.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R1 TO 3 MR.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN,SENIOR PANEL COUNS MR.P.PARAMESWRAN NAIR ASST.SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.19241/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 7.4.03. P2:- COPY OF THE REVISED CONSOLIDATED PENSION OF CHIEF PETTY OFFICER AS PER TABLE NO.105. P3:- COPY OF THE LETER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 16.10.03. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.37223/2003 DT. 19.11.04. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B-9013/AG/PS-1(a&c)/131/A/D(PENSION/SERVICE) GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DT. 9.2.2001. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DP/S/142452. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.19241 of 2005 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th February,2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit-P6 by which the respondents rejected the claim for higher pension. It is contended that the same has been passed without considering the directions issued by this Court in Exhibit-P4 judgment. The minimum facts required for the purpose of disposal of this case are the following. 2. Petitioner joined in Indian Navy as Petty Officer on 23.12.1978. He was promoted as Chief Petty Officer on 1.8.1993 and retired on 31.12.1993 after completing 15 years and 9 days service. All the pension payment orders were issued on the basis of his service as Petty Officer. The stand taken by the respondents is that benefits in the scale of pay of Chief Petty Officer is less favourable to him. Petitioner had been claiming various benefits by way of revision, when the consolidated pension of Chief Petty Officer was revised. Ultimately he approached this Court by filing WPC No.37223 of 2003 which was disposed of by Exhibit-P4 judgment. W.P ( C) No.19241 of 2005 2 Paragraph 3 of the judgment shows that this Court directed the 2nd respondent therein to reconsider the matter in the light of the relevant clause quoted in para 2 of the judgment therein. It was finally directed that the 2nd respondent will reconsider the case of the petitioner's claim for monthly pension of Rs.2,030/- in the light of Exhibits P3 and Annexure-A which was extracted in the judgment. 3. Exhibit-P5 is the letter dated 9.2.2001, the relevant portion of which were quoted in paragraph 2 of the judgment. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating in paragraph 7 that “as per the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter B/39013/AG/PS-4(a&c)/131/A/D (Pen/Sers) dated 9.2.2001, the pension of all Armed Forces personnel irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1.1.1996 even if the rank/group was held for less than 10 months before W.P ( C) No.19241 of 2005 3 retirement. Such pension will be reduced proportionately if the qualifying service is less than 33 years.” 5. According to the respondents, the PCDA(Navy) Mumbai stated that the pensioner is benefitted by drawing his Petty Officer rank pension instead of modified parity. The contention taken is that, if he is to be given pension at Chief Petty Officer's rank, it can be given only at the minimum scale. 6. A reading of Exhibit-P5 shows that the reliance placed by the respondents in the counter affidavit is to the first paragraph of Exhibit-P5. But the said clause in Exhibit-P5 stands modified which is evident from the 2nd paragraph, which is extracted below. It is clarified that pension of all pre-96 retiree Armed Forces Personnel will be revised on the basis of the rank/group last held by the individual and the revised pay scale connected thereto even if the rank/group was held for less than 10 months before retirement. Such pension will be reduced proportionately, if the qualifying service is less than 33 years. Other conditions to earn pension will continue to apply.” W.P ( C) No.19241 of 2005 4 7. Going by the same, the pension will be revised on the basis of the rank/group last held by the individual and the revised pay scale connected thereto, even if a the rank/group was held for less than 10 months before retirement. Therefore, the contention that the pension will be fixed on the minimum of the revised scale of pay cannot be accepted. The said clause has been further modified going by the latter part of Exhibit-P5 itself. In Exhibit-P4 judgment, after considering the impact of the latter part of Exhibit-P5, this Court issued directions to reconsider the matter. The same was clearly overlooked. When full effect is given to the latter part of Exhibit-P5, the pension will have to be revised accordingly. As contended by the respondents, it is not on the minimum scale, in the Petty Officer rank, that is allowable. 8. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. Therefore, Exhibit-P6 is quashed. Respondents are directed to revise the pension at the rate of Rs.2,030/- per month as claimed in Exhibit-P2. This will be subject to any orders granting periodical revision issued W.P ( C) No.19241 of 2005 5 by the Government. Appropriate orders shall be passed refixing the petitioner's pension at the rate of Rs.2030/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and arrears will also be sanctioned accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.19241 of 2005 6 W.P ( C) No.19241 of 2005 7