IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 51 of 2010(J) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33699/2006 Dated 06/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED 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. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM, ADDL.CGSC RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------- K.N.BABU, (EX.CH.AA NO.59642-NAVY) ADAVANNA HOUSE, P.O.CHENAMANGALAM THEKKUMPURAM ERNAKULAM, KERALA. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2011, ALONG WITH RP NO. 118 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN RP 51/2010 ANNEXURE I - TRUE PHOTO COPY OF REGULATION 105-B OF THE NAVY PENSION REGULATIONS 1964 ANNEXURE II-TRUE PHOTO COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.1.2001 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.51/2010 in W.P.(C) No.33699/2006 & R.P.No.118/2010 in W.P.(C) No.26516/2007 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011. O R D E R The review petitions are filed by the respondents in the writ petitions. 2. Heard learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the review petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The review petitions are filed mainly relying upon Annexure II order dated 31.1.2001. It is averred in the review petitions that the petitioners filed Writ Appeal Nos.1619/2009 and 1622/2009 and the Writ Appeal was disposed of permitting them to file review petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a reading of Annexure II shows that the same will not apply to the persons like the respondents herein. 5. Part I of Annexure II is under the heading “Date of effect and Definitions.” Clause 2.1 reads as follows: “2.1 The provisions of this letter shall apply to the Armed Forces personnel who were in service on 1.1.1996 or joined/join service RP 51 & 118/2010 2 thereafter unless otherwise specified in this letter.” In the light of the above, the same will apply only to Armed Forces personnel who were in service on 1.1.1996 or joined service thereafter. As far as the respondents herein are concerned, definitely they were not in service on 1.1.1996, since the respondent in R.P.No.51/2010 retired from service in the year 1979 and the respondent in R.P.No.118/2010 retired in 1982. Obviously, therefore, Annexure II cannot have any application as far as the respondents are concerned. In that view of the matter, there is no apparent error in the judgment and hence the review petitions are dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/