Kerala High Court
Ex Jc No.223142-N Hony Subedar Major ... vs Union Of India Rep By Secretary on 4 July, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
W.P(C) No.14797 of 2024. 1
2025:KER:49813
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14797 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
EX JC NO.223142-N HONY SUBEDAR MAJOR PRASANNAN
PILLAI G
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O SHRI GOPINATHAN UNNITHAN, R/O-PADMAVILASAM,
NADUVILAKARA, THEVALAKARA PO KOLLAM DIST, KERALA,
PIN - 690524
BY ADV SHRI.R.RAHUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA REP BY SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110001
2 THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF
INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS (ARMY). NEW DELHI., PIN -
110001
3 OIC RECORDS
AOC RECORDS, SECUNDERABAD, PIN - 500015
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR, CGC
O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
W.P(C) No.14797 of 2024. 2
2025:KER:49813
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.14797 of 2024. 3
2025:KER:49813
AMIT RAWAL & P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
.................................................................
W.P (C).No.14797 of 2024
.......................................................
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V. Balakrishnan, J.
This writ petition is filed by the applicant in OA No.85 of 2020 on the files of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi challenging the order dated 22.03.2023, dismissing this application.
2. The applicant, a Subedar who was recruited in the Army on 27.06.1977 and was discharged on 30.06.2005. According to the applicant, he had an excellent service career and was promoted to the rank of Subedar before his discharge. All Subedars and Subedar Majors of the Regular Army will be considered for grant of Honorary Commission on active list in the last year of their colour services and the applicant was thus eligible to get Honorary Rank of Lieutenant before his retirement. He was recommended for the grant of Honorary Commission and while considering his case, since his Annual Confidential Report (herein after referred to as 'ACR' for short) of the year 2003 was not available along with other ACRs, the same was called for. However, due to non availability of ACR of 2003, the DPC did not consider the case of the applicant for W.P(C) No.14797 of 2024. 4 2025:KER:49813 Honorary Commission and consequently, the applicant was discharged from service in the rank of Subedar. It is aggrieved by the denial of the Honorary rank, the applicant approached the tribunal.
3. The tribunal after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the application.
4. Heard Sri. R. Rahul, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Premjith Kumar, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sole reason for denial of Honorary Commission to the petitioner was the missing of his ACR of the 2003. He also submitted that it is only because of the negligence and laches on the part of the respondents, he was illegally denied the Honorary Commission.
6. On the other hand, the learned Central Government Counsel submitted that the petitioner was considered twice for the grant of Honorary Commission, but he did not come up in the required merit. He further submitted that the non availability of ACR of 2003 is not the ground for denying the Honorary Commission.
7. The only question to be considered in this writ W.P(C) No.14797 of 2024. 5 2025:KER:49813 petition is whether the denial of Honorary Commission to the petitioner was due to the missing of ACR of 2003 or not ? It is true that a perusal of Exts.P3 to P7 documents would show that the ACR for the year 2003 of the petitioner was not available and that a number of communications have been addressed to make it available in time. But a perusal of these documents will not in any manner show that the petitioner was not included in the panel for consideration by the DPC or that his name was not considered for the reason that his ACR of 2003 was missing. As rightly found by the tribunal, there is nothing in Exts.P3 to P7 which would show that it is due to the absence of the ACR of 2003, the Honorary Commission to the petitioner was denied. Therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the tribunal that the materials produced by the petitioner are not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that he was denied the Honorary Commission due to the missing of ACR of 2003, cannot be faulted with.
Resultantly, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dxy W.P(C) No.14797 of 2024. 6 2025:KER:49813 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14797/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE DISCHARGE BOOK OF PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF POLICY LETTER NO.A/62204/AG/CW2 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF SIGNAL NO. 7078 DATED 12.07.2003 Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE SIGNAL NO. 7276 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
31103/ACR/JCOS/CA-2 DATED 10.11.2003 Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.04.2004 Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE DO LETTER DATED 17.04.2004 Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.
85/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT LD. TRIBUNAL, KOCHI Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 85/2020 Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2023 PASSED BY THE LD. AFT KOCHI