IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20072 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANDRA BABU K. (CONSTABLE, BORDER SECURITY FORCE) S/O.K.K. NARAYANAN, KUTTIKKAD HOUSE, MUKKAM COLONY, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMONDANT, HQ 122 BATTALION, BORDER SECURITY FORCE, HEADQUARTERS, RANI NAGAR, JAIPAIGURI, WEST BENGAL-735 101. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. BY SHRI P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.20072 of 2009-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Boarder Security Force at the age of 20 and he completed 10 years and one month's service on 30.6.1996. Subsequently, he submitted his resignation and sought for grant of pension. By Ext.P1, he was sanctioned pension also. 2. The petitioner had been receiving pension up to September, 2001 and thereafter the same was stopped. In answer to the representation submitted by the petitioner, by Ext.P2 he was informed that the pension was sanctioned irregularly and the petitioner is not eligible for any pensionary benefits as he has not completed 20 years of qualifying service. The petitioner again took up the matter by filing another representation. By Ext.P3, the petitioner sought for permission to rejoin duty. Accordingly, by Ext.P4 he was granted time for rejoining duty, viz. upto 31.12.2006. Ext.P5 shows that he was granted further time up to 15.7.2007. It appears that the petitioner could not rejoin duty in the light of the fact that he was not medically fit and therefore he sought for orders to relieve him from the obligation to rejoin duty which was rejected by Ext.P6. wpc 20072/2009 2 3. The petitioner has produced Exts.P9 and P10 which are representations submitted by him seeking for appropriate orders in the matter and to restore his pension as a welfare measure. In the said representations he has given in detail the circumstances under which he could not rejoin duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no orders have been passed on Exts.P9 and P10 and therefore the competent authority among the respondents may be directed to take a decision on Exts.P9 and P10 within a time frame. 4. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Exts.P9 and P10 within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the same have not been disposed of so far. The result of the same will be communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner will forward a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/