IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 OP.No. 7020 of 1998(I) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- K.V. SAMUEL, S/O LATE. KURIAN VARGHESE, AGED 73 YEARS, KOHUMALAYIL, PUNNACKADU.P.O., KOZHENCHERY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.) SMT.S.SUBHA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCOR, KOZHENCHERRY BRANCH.. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR, CGC FOR R1 SRI.M.A.MOHAMED ASHRAF, ADDL.CGSC THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 7020 of 1998(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1(2)/92/D (PENSION/SERVICES) DATED 16.3.1992 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.12.1996 IN O.P. 12595/92-Y OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P3 – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.2.1998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== O.P.No.7020 of 1998 ================== Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a retired army personnel. By Ext.P1 order, Government of India declared an One Time Increase in Service/ Retiring Pension to the Armed Force personnel, who retired from service before 1.1.86. But sub clauses (viii) and (ix) of clause 4 of Ext.P1 stipulated that the One Time Increase would not be applicable to pensioners who have earned a second Retiring/ Superannuation / Service Pension in addition to their military pension. The petitioner admittedly is getting a second pension in addition to the military pension, having being employed subsequent to retirement from military service. Therefore by Ext.P3 letter the petitioner was informed that he is not entitled to the One Time Increase as per Ext.P1. The petitioner is challenging sub clause (viii) and (ix) of clause 4 of Ext.P1 and Ext.P3. The contention of the petitioner is that the said sub clauses in Ext.P1 is unreasonable and unconstitutional. 2. I have heard the Central Government Counsel also. By Ext.P1, the Government has conferred a concession on O.P.No.7020 of 1998 - 2 - retired armed forces personnel on certain terms and conditions. That is not a right but only a concession. That concession is extended on specific terms and conditions. The petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled to that concession de hores the terms and conditions thereof. In any event I do not find anything unreasonable and unconstitutional in the conditions. The conditions have been imposed on every intelligible criteria to deny the benefit only to persons who have subsequently obtained employment after military service and is getting a second pension also in respect of that employment. That being so, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs