IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 OP.No. 27599 of 2001(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B. MOHAMMED HANEEFA S/O. BAPU MOOPAN, AGED 57 YEARS, NOORANI MASJID HOUSE, CIVIL STATION WARD, PALLIPURAYIDAM, ALAPPUZHA - 12 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (INTELLIGENCE) S.B.C.I.D., HEAD QUARTERS, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (ADMINISTRATION), SPECIAL BRANCH C.I.D., HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, (PENSION PAYMENT), ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 27599 of 2001(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G2-22290/99/INT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE -DO- -DO- EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PRS-REV/98/J/01-02/667 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... O.P. No.27599 of 2001 ................................................. Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a head constable of police, who retired from service on 28.2.1999. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 to P4 orders, whereby petitioner's pension has been revised and reduced on the ground that the higher grade granted to the petitioner was irregular. One of the primary contention of the petitioner in the writ petition against Exts.P1 to P4 is that before passing those orders petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(a) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-1 to P-4 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Respondents to refrain from reducing the pension and ancillary benefits of the Petitioner.” No counter affidavit is filed. But the learned Government Pleader argues for sustaining impugned orders. In the impugned orders there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner has been heard before passing those orders. Revision O.P. No.27599 of 2001 -2- of the retirement benefits of the petitioner to his detriment certainly entails civil consequences. Therefore orders in that regard could have been passed only after notice and hearing to the petitioner. Since that has not been done in this case, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Exts.P1 to P4 orders are quashed. If the respondents still intends to pass fresh orders on the issue at this point of time, they may do so, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs