IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8175 of 2008 Between: Mohammad Fazlul Haq (Ex.No.6601328 Sepoy) R/o.Village & Post office Chandole Mandal, Pittalavanipalem, Guntur District, AP ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India., through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India., New Delhi-110011 2 The Officer in Charge, The ASC Records Bangalore (KAR) 3 The Principal, CDA (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat Allahabad ,AP .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a direction orders or a writ more appropriately one in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing/declaring the action of the respondents herein "Declare 2nd respondent proceedings No.6601328/CC-2/Legal Cell dated 4.4.2006 rejecting petitioner claim for invalidation pension on the grounds of destruction of Records as being unjust unreasonable and without any valid authority and therefore violative of petitioner Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,16,& 21 of the Constitution of India and thus ULTRA VIRES" and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VISHAL SAXENA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8175 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Sepoy (Driver MT) in the Indian Army on 21-09-1960. He was posted in the Field Area-cum- Operational Area, in the year 1965, in two spells i.e. March 1965 to August 1966, and October 1966 to March 1967. He is said to have suffered knee injury in August 1967. Treatment was accorded at Military Hospital at Lucknow. On finding that the injuries were not responding to treatment, the petitioner was referred to Unit Medical Officer, at General Hospital, and after certain other steps, he was discharged from service in November 1968, on the ground that he is unfit for any civil/military employment. Since the service of the petitioner was relatively brief, he was not granted the pension. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21342 of 2004, seeking directions, as regards the payment of pension. The writ petition was dismissed on 02-12-2004. It was observed that the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered at this length of time. In Writ appeal No.2134 of 2004, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the order of the learned single Judge, and it was affirmed that the petitioner is not even entitled for invalid pension, since he did not have the minimum of 10 years of service. However, it was left open to the petitioner to make a representation to the Union of India, the 1st respondent herein, with a prayer to relax the relevant Rule. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 1st respondent accordingly, and requested that necessary instructions be issued, to grant pension together with arrears. Through the letter dated 04-04-2006, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the service documents, relating to the petitioner, were destroyed, on account of the expiry of the mandatory period of 25 years, and that his case cannot be considered on account of the non-availability of records. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings. Heard Sri Vishal Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T. Balaji, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government. After being discharged from the Military, the only substantive step taken by the petitioner, claiming pension, was, filing of W.P.No.21342 of 2004 before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed on finding that the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted, on the grounds of laches, as well as non-fulfillment of the Regulations of Army, for payment of pension. The view taken in the writ petition was upheld by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2134 of 2004. The only facility provided to the petitioner was, that it was left open to him to make a representation to the 1st respondent to consider the feasibility of relaxing the relevant Rules. It needs to be noted that this observation was preceded by a specific finding that the petitioner is neither eligible for regular pension, nor disability pension, under the relevant Regulations. Indirectly, it was pointed out that any relief can be granted to the petitioner only by relaxing the relevant provisions of law. In his representation, the petitioner did not make any request for relaxation. It is a different thing, as to whether there is any provision for such relaxation, and if so, the petitioner is entitled thereto. Apart from that, the 2nd respondent expressed its inability to examine the case of the petitioner, since the relevant records were destroyed on expiry of 25 years. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 17-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}