IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 OP.No. 19613 of 2002(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.RAJAN, S/O. P.KUMARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, SUB-STAFF, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, CALICUT, RESIDING AT POOPPARAMBATH HOUSE, POST MAKKADA, CALICUT-673 617. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.R.SREERAJ SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SMT.T.M.RESHMY SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS(INSURANCE DIVISION) NEW DELHI. 2. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE BUILDING, CHURCH GATE, MUMBAI-400 020. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600 014. 4. REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI-11. ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER FOR R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 19613/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.19.7.91. P3. COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER DTD.5.9.1991. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.13.4.93 BY R3 TO R4. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No. 10215/1992 OF THIS COURT. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 19613 of 2002. ================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an ex-serviceman, who was discharged from the Defence Service. Thereafter, he was re-employed in the 3rd respondent company. The mode of fixation of pay on such reemployment is prescribed in Ext.P1 circular issued by the 2nd respondent. Based on the same, the petitioner's pay had been fixed. But subsequently circulars were issued regarding such fixation contrary to each other. A writ petition filed by another employee challenging one of them was allowed by Ext.P5 judgment. The writ appeal filed against Ext.P5 judgment has also been dismissed. Another writ petition viz.,O.P.No.12010/1996, filed by another person in respect of the same subject matter is also stated to be disposed of. In view of the pendency of those proceedings and interim orders therein, the petitioner's pay had not been refixed to his detriment. Going by the age in the affidavit accompanying the original petition, the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs; “i. to declare that paragraph 5 of Exhibit P2 circular is illegal, unconstitutional and ultravires and therefore, unenforceable against the petitioner. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or n commanding the respondents 3 and 4 not to alter the pay fixation made in the case of the petitioner on his re- o.p.19613/02 2 employment by enforcing paragraph 5 of Exhibit P2 Circular.” 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. As such, the averments of the petitioner in the original petition stand uncontroverted. Now that the petitioner has already retired from service and he has received his benefits in accordance with the original fixation, I dispose of this original petition confirming the original fixation of pay as per which he has retired from service and declaring that all service benefits and retirement benefits due to him shall be regulated in accordance with the original fixation of pay as per Ext.P1 circular. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 19613 of 2002-I ================== J U D G M E N T 7th October, 2010