IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36852 of 2004(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE KERALA EX-GREF WELFARE ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.A 430/97, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.RAMAN, RESIDING AT SAROJ NIVAS,KANNAMPALLY BHAGOM, KANDALLOOR, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR (JCA) MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PG AND PENSIONS, DEPT. OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE QUARTER MASTER GENERAL, ARMY HEAD QUARTERS, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL RESETTLEMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER ROADS, KASHMIR HOUSE, DHQ P.O., NEW DELHI. R1, R2, R4 TO R6 BY SMT.A.SREEKALA, ADDL.CGSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36852/2004-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15/03/2002 IN O.P. NO. 18256/1995-W OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/07/2004 IN I.A. NO. 2152/2004 IN W.A. UNNUMBERED/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36852 OF 2004 ==================== Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Association representing the members of the General Reserve Engineering Force. The prayer sought for by them is to direct the respondents to grant them the status of Ex- Service men and the benefit of rehabilitation schemes and other attendant benefits, which are provided to ex soldiers of Indian Army. 2. The basis on which the claim of the petitioner has been set up, is the judgment of the Apex Court in R.Viswan v. Union of India (1983(3) SCC 401 and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Kunjikrishna Pillai v. Union of India reported in (1987(1) ATLT 167). A reading of these two judgments show that the Apex Court as also the Central Administrative Tribunal have accepted the contention that the members of the GREF is to be treated a part and parcel of Indian Army. It is stated that having upheld their claim that they are part and parcel of the Indian Army, there is absolutely no reason for denying them the status of Ex-service WPC.No.36852 /04 :2 : men and refusing to extend the benefits that are provided to Ex service men. On this basis, petitioner contends that the rights of their members as laid under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated. 3. Although the petitioner has claimed equality with Ex- service men, I find that the Government of India has not so far considered this claim or rendered any decision on this claim of the petitioner. It is essentially a policy matter and is primarily for the Government to address this issue and take a decision. It is only thereafter and if such a policy decision is vitiated of any of the grounds available for judicial review, can this Court examine the validity of such a policy decision. 4. At this stage, having regard to the fact that the Government of India is yet to consider and take a decision in this behalf, it is only appropriate that atleast initially the petitioner should take up their grievance with the Government of India and the Government of India should render its decision on the claims urged. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent urging WPC.No.36852 /04 :3 : their claim as noticed above and it is directed that if such a representation is made, the same shall be considered by the Ist respondent bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court and also the Central Administrative Tribunal in the judgments referred to above and a final decision in the matter should be rendered, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 months of receipt thereof. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the representation before the 1st respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp