Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Satheeshchandran K vs Union Of India on 12 June, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
                                    &
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023
PETITIONER(S)APPLICANT:

            SATHEESHCHANDRAN K
            AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE KUMARA PILLAI,
            14528373 H, HAVILDAR (RETIRED), CORPS OF EME,
            NEELAKANDESHWARAM BHAVAN, DHANUVACHAPURAM,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695503

            BY ADVS.
            V.K.PRASAD
            MUSTHAHAZIN K. MOHAMMED
            JOSNA.C.F


RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT:

    1       UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF
            DEFENCE, EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
            NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011

    2       THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF
            ARMY HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011

    3       THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION)
            DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD, PIN - 211014

    4       THE CHIEF RECORD OFFICER
            EME RECORDS, SECUNDERABAD, TELENGANA, PIN - 500015


     THIS   WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
12.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023
                                2


                            JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.06.2023 in O.A.No.14 of 2021 of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Branch, filed against non-grant of Honorary Rank of Naib Subedar after having served the Indian Army for a period of twenty(26) years.

2. The brief facts in support of the aforementioned claim are as under:

Petitioner was enrolled in the Army's Corps of EME on 23.03.1977 and retired on 31.03.2003 from 10 Corps Zonal Workshop as Havildar. Character of the petitioner at the time of release was assessed as 'exemplary' as evident from Ext.P2. During his service, has several notable accomplishments including the successful completion of promotion cadre test and commendation for technical professional excellence from Major General, EME, HQ Western Command as per the commendation letter dated 25.10.2002 Ext.P5.

WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023 3 The service rules and conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Defence Service Regulation (Army) (hereinafter called 'DSR') and Clause 179(a) of the DSR provides that step of Honorary rank on retirement with title of honorary Subedar can be bestowed on JCOs who are specially recommended by the Chief of Army staff as deserving the honor and Section 180 of DSR outlines the eligibility criteria. Petitioner squarely fell in that recommendation and provisions, and for claiming the aforementioned benefits submitted an application for conferring of honorary rank which was not considered and thereafter, on 02.11.2012 received the information from the 4th respondent-Chief Record Officer, EME Records (Ext.P7), that his name was forwarded/recommended to concerned Comd Headquarters on the occasion of Independence Day, 2003, but did not come in merit and therefore, the honorary rank was not granted. Ext.P7 representation was submitted and ultimately, was left high and dry as having discriminated for, the respondents granted certain benefits to other favorites.

WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023 4

3. Respondents do not deny that petitioner had a unblemished record and name was sent for grant of honorary rank of Naib Risldar/Naib Subedar on retirement within one year of becoming non effective and the petitioner- applicant was making all the criteria but did not making the merit drawn out by IHQ of Ministry of Defence (Army)/CW-2.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

5. The order of Tribunal rejecting the aforementioned prayer by accepting the contention do not suffer from any illegality for the reason that the honorary ranks are granted to the person who had shown excellent performance and for that the department prepares a seniority-cum-merit list. However, there are very few vacancies but more aspirants for the said grant. Petitioner has not been able to make out a case of discrimination, on the contrary the stand of the respondents had been that the selection was purely on merit-cum-seniority list drawn by the ceremonial and welfare director based on all India merit prepared amongst WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023 5 army persons. It is not the case of the petitioner that his name was not forwarded. In fact it was forwarded but was not found in the merit list as there were less vacancies. It is not a vested right but only a grant with absolute right and relevant merit has to be considered.

No ground for interference is made out. Writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE nak WP(C) NO. 42758 OF 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42758/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.06.2023 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI.

Exhibit 2 A TRUE COPY OF CORPS OF EME RECORDS. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER (PPO) .

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF SERVICE BOOK OF PETITIONER SHOWING HIS SERVICE AND PERSONAL DETAILS.

Exhibit 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMENDATION LETTER DATED 25.10.2022.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.11.2012 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED LETTER WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF OA 14/2021 WITHOUT ANNEXURES.