IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 23863 of 2006(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BENNY P. VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 37 YEARS, PAINUMKKAL HOUSE, KANDANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.J.VARGHESE SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.JOSE. V.V. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SAINIK WELFARE DEPARTMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. OFFICER IN CHARGE, AIR FORCE RECORD OFFICE, SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI-10. 3. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SAINIK WELFARE DIRECTORATE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ZILLA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R2,R3 SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23863/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FOR THE ORTHOPAEDICALLY HANDICAPPED DT 17.9.2002 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ATTRIBUTABILITY CERTIFICATE DT 1.9.04 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.110/2002/GAD DT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 29.4.2002. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 7.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, CHAF BANGALORE. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT 13.12.2004 ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OFFICE. EXT.P6: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DT 28.2.2005 SEND BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 21.7.2005 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE 1 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 27.10.05 IN WPC NO.30136/05. EXT.P9: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 24.11.05. EXT.P10: PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT 13.12.2005 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 29.12.2005 FOR REVIEWING THE ORDER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23863 OF 2006 (N) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was an Airman in the Air Force. It is stated that while posted at No.3 BRD AF, Chandigarh, petitioner met with an accident and suffered 100% disability. Ext.P1 is the medical certificate and Ext.P2 is the Atributability Certificate. 2. Ext.P3 GO(P) NO.110/02/GAD dated 29th April 2002, provided for employment assistance in the State service to the dependents of defence personnel killed/disabled/missing in action etc. One of the eligibility condition specified in Ext.P3 reads as under: The concession under this scheme shall be applicable to one dependent of the defence personnel and GREF/BSF personnel attached to military duty killed/disabled/missing in operational areas/field areas due to high altitude or adverse climatic conditions or due to explosion of mines, booby traps, vehicle accidents etc., within operational area/field area/peace time conditions circumstances of which are identical activities during operational engagements. 3. Claiming that the petitioner was disabled in an accident within the operational area, petitioner's wife made Ext.P7 application. The claim was considered and was rejected by Ext.P10. The reason stated in Ext.P10 is that the accident should WPC No. 23863/06 :2 : have occurred within the operation area/field area/peace time conditions circumstances of which are identical to activities during operational engagements. It is challenging Ext.P10, the writ petition is filed. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In para 10, it is stated thus: The injury of the petitioner is attributable to Air Force Service. Attributable certificate was also issued to the petitioner vide RO/2916/1/P&WW (Wel) dated 28 Mar 06. The No.3 BRD, AF Chandigarh, which is an operational base of Indian Air Force. Air Force normally operates from a remote area, which is far away from the border of the country. 5. From the averments in the counter affidavit, it would appear that according to the 2nd respondent, the accident which the petitioner has suffered was at the operational base of Indian Air Force. The question whether the operational base of Indian Air Force comes within the expression “operational area” mentioned in Ext.P3 Government order, is a matter for the 1st respondent to consider. Since the issue has not been considered in that light, I feel the matter needs to be reconsidered. 6. For that reason, I set aside Ext.P10 and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 application made by the WPC No. 23863/06 :3 : petitioner's wife for the benefit of Ext.P3 Government Order, in the light of the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent as extracted above. 7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent, who shall pass orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp