IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33699 of 2006(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- L.K.N.BABU, (EX.NO.59642-NAVY), ADAVANNA HOUSE, P.O.CHENNAMANGALAM, THEKKUMPURAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN MR.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. PRINCIPLE CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION), ALLAHABAD. 3. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BUREAU OF SAILORS, MUMBAI-400 088. 4. THE DEFENCE PENSION, DISBURSING OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.B.VINOD, CGC MR.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 33699 of 2006-J - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The main relief sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P11 and for a direction to the respondents to pay minimum basic pension from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1996 and the revised basic pension of Rs.1250/- with effect from 1.1.1996 along with the revised disability elements for 30% disability with all other consequential benefits including arrears. 2. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman discharged from Navy after 10 years of service due to disability. He served in the Indian Navy for 10 years from 15.7.1969 to 30.7.1979. In 1976 he sustained a serious knee injury and was medically downgraded due to the “Internal Knee Dislocation.” and was placed in medical category B. Later, he was admitted in the Military Hospital, Pune and was placed in medical category C by the Medical Board. The Release Medical Board recommended to release him in medical category C. The disability was found attributable to Naval service. But it was only assessed at 20% for four years. He did not get any pension because of this fact. After 4 years he was called for a re-assessment and after examination by the Medical Board, the disability was assessed at 30% WPC 33699/06 2 for 10 years. Accordingly, he was sanctioned disability pension at Rs.14/- per month as per Ext.P2 for the period from 17.4.1986 to 16.4.1996. This was revised to Rs.40/- per month as per Ext.P3 dated 17.5.1987. 3. As per Ext.P4, based on the recommendation of the IVth Central Pay Commission Report, the Central Government revised the minimum pension of all pensioners at Rs.375/- per month with effect from 1.1.1986 and he claimed the said benefit by Ext.P5 representation. But by Ext.P6, he was given an increase only upto Rs.135/- per month from 1.1.1986 to 16.4.1996. Again, he submitted Ext.P7 representation. But by Ext.P8 he was informed that the second respondent has sanctioned Rs.135/- per month as disability pension from 17.4.1996 for life. The question regarding the claim of such pensioners under Ext.P4 was considered by this court in Ext.P9 judgment and after coming to know about the same, he submitted a fresh representation by way of Ext.P10 Therein, he requested to grant him revised pension of Rs.1250/- with effect from 1.1.1996 along with the earlier pension of Rs.375/- with effect from 1.1.1986. This was rejected by Ext.P11 which is under challenge in this writ petition. From 1.1.1996 the minimum pension at Rs.1250/- has been revised to Rs.1550/- for 100% disability. 4. In the light of Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therein, this court considered the scope and effect of Ext.P4 WPC 33699/06 3 herein. The question whether it was applicable only to service pension and not disability pension, was considered. In para 7 it was held as follows: “Ext.P3 is intended to benefit the low paid pensioners. It has to be interpreted in a liberal way and not in a way to take away the benefits. Plain terms of Ext.P3 speaks that it is applicable to all pensioners. Words and mandate of Ext.P3 are very clear and cogent and there is nothing in Ext.P3 limiting it only to service pensioners given after retirement of particular period of service. In fact, it is specifically stated that it is not only applicable to superannuation/retiring pension and it is applied to invalid pension, compensation and family pension. But, it is the minimum allowed. In this case, disability pension was granted to the pensioner as he was released from military due to the disability admitted attributable to the service. Ext.P3 is applicable to the petitioner. In fact, he was paid the above with effect from 1.1.1986. But, respondent reduced the pension to Rs.90/- per month and took steps to recover the amount paid excess. On going through Ext.P3 and other averments, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to get the minimum pension from 1.1.1986 as per Ext.P3 till 22.5.1995, the last date upto which he was granted pension and 1.1.1986 to 22.5.1995, he is entitled to get Rs.375/- per month. Ext.P4 is set aside. Respondents are directed to pay the balance amount of pension for the period 1.1.1986 to 22.5.1996 at the minimum rate of Rs.375/- per mensem after deducting the amount already paid to him. The amount should be paid within three months from today failing which it will carry 12% interest from 22.5.1995 till its payment.” WPC 33699/06 4 4. Since the issue is covered by Ext.P9 judgment, the order Ext.P11 cannot survive. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was discharged from Navy after 10 years of service due to the disability which is assessed at 30%. Therefore, the benefits flowing from Ext.P4 for the relevant period and which was being revised from time to time, are allowable in his case. It is declared so. 5. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay minimum pension at Rs.375/- from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1996 and the revised basic pension at Rs.1250/- with effect from 1.1.1996 along with the revised disability element for 30% disability with all consequential benefits including arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. He will be entitled for any revision of pension sanctioned during the pendency of the writ petition, if any. It is also declared that he is entitled to be paid the pension going by the revised disability element. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/