IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34011 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.618/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 37. 3. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 37. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- SRI.P.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S/O.LATE N.PADMANABHAN NAIR, ASSISTANT SECURITY OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, (ERSTWHILE COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE), KAKKANAD, COCHIN-37, R/AT C-51, BLOCK NO.17, CPWD QUARTER, KOCHI - 683 030. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THES FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34011 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.618/2006. The applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is the respondent. The respondent/applicant filed the above O.A. claiming that the service rendered by him in the Army for the period from 02.09.1978 to 08.10.1981 should also be counted for grant of pension. He was invalidated out from the Army on medical grounds. Later, he was appointed as Assistant Security Officer on 10.8.1991 under the 2nd respondent. He completed his probation and he was appointed as Assistant Security Officer on substantive basis on 10.8.1993. As per Rule 19 of the CCS Pension Rules, past military service can be reckoned for pensionary benefits. At the time of appointment of an incumbent, who has military service, the appointing authority should indicate that the appointee should exercise his option in writing stating whether he wants the said service also to be reckoned for pensionary benefits or prefers to draw military pension for that service. In this case, the applicant contended that he was never alerted W.P.(C) No.34011/2008 2 by the appropriate authority and therefore he could not exercise his option. In 2003, the respondent/applicant filed a representation claiming that the service in the army may also be reckoned for the purpose of pension. But, the said application was rejected on the ground of delay from his part in making the request. The aggrieved applicant moved the C.A.T. The respondents in the Original Application, who are the writ petitioners herein, resisted the application contending that, since the applicant did not exercise his option in time as provided under Rule 19 of the CCS Pension Rules, his request cannot be granted. In answer, the applicant submitted that he was never alerted under Rule 19(2)(a) of the CCS Pension Rules to exercise his option. In the absence of any such intimation, alerting the applicant to exercise his option in writing, while he was appointed substantively, there was no delay from his part, it was submitted. 2. The Tribunal heard both sides and found that the contention of the applicant is correct. He was never alerted by the appointing authority to exercise his option as contemplated under Rule 19(2)(a) of the CCS Pension Rules. In view of the said W.P.(C) No.34011/2008 3 position, it was held that there is no delay from the part of the respondent/applicant to raise his claim. So, the Original Application was allowed, directing the writ petitioners to count his service from 2.9.1978 to 8.10.1981 for the purpose of pension. This writ petition is filed, challenging the said order of the C.A.T., which is produced as Ext.P3. The ground taken before the C.A.T. is again repeated before us. But, the Tribunal has positively found that the applicant/respondent was never alerted to opt as contemplated under Rule 19(2)(a) of the CCS Pension Rules. It is a finding of fact, which cannot be disturbed as in these proceedings. In this writ petition also, the writ petitioners do not have a case that the appointing authority has alerted the applicant regarding his right to option under Rule 19(2)(a). Therefore this writ petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps