IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17501 of 2003(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.J.GEORGE S/O. K.A. JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, KADUNGANPARAMBIL HOUSE, NETTOR P.O. (VIA) MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA. RETIRED CONSTABLE B.S.F. BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH, SRI.GEORGE MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PAY AND ACCOUNT OFFICER, CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TRIKOOT-2 COMPLEX, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE, BLOCK NO. 10, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD P.O., NEW DELHI-3 4. THE COMMANDANT, 13 BN BSF., JALALABAD, FEROZPUR, PUNJAB. R1 TO R4 BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA, SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR, ADDL.CGSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17501/2003-H: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 3001/2003 IN W.P.(C). NO.17501/2003-H CLOSED 08/06/2010. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17501 of 2003 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined the BSF as a Constable on 12/09/1968. On a request made by him, he was discharged from service with effect from 01/11/1980. 2. Thereafter by Ext.P2 order he was sanctioned pension with effect from 01/11/1980. However, that was stopped by Ext.P3 order based on the Apex Court judgment in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (2001(4) SCC 309). It was in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite Ext.P3 order, since the validity of earlier orders were being considered by the Apex Court pension has not been discontinued and that the petitioner is continuing to get payment. It is also pointed out that subsequently the Apex Court in its judgment in Raj Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Another (2006(1) SCC 737) has held that persons like him, who were granted pension, are entitled to be paid pension. On this basis, learned counsel submit WP(C) No.17501/2003 -2- that he is entitled to continued payment of pension. 4. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in Raj Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Another 2006(1) SCC 737) that employees like the petitioner are entitled to continued payment of pension, Ext.P3 insofar as the petitioner is concerned, cannot be implemented. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner is continuing to get the pension paid, the writ petition is disposed of clarifying the position as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg