Kerala High Court
Premadasan A (Ex-Nk 10165276 W) vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2026
W.P.(C).No.39880 of 2023
1
2026:KER:7742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 8TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39880 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 PREMADASAN A (EX-NK 10165276 W)
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O A.N. RAMANKUTTY MANNADIAR (LATE) DSC RECORDS,
KANNUR, NOW RESIDING AT EARAT HOUSE, MANGODE,
PUDUNAGALAM POST, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678
503.
2 RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI S (EX-NK-3990611 M)
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O SANKARA PILLAI (LATE) DSC RECORDS, KANNUR, NOW
RESIDING AT 'UTRAM NIVAS', KULAKKADA, KULAKKADA EAST
POST, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691521
3 UTHAMAN MANGUAN (EX-NB/SUB JC 842865 P)
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O K.N. GOVINDAN (LATE) DSC RECORDS, KANNUR, NOW
RESIDING AT 'PARADISE', ERANJHOLI, PERUMTHATTIL
POST, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670 107.
4 KUNHI KANNAN (EX. N/SUB-842786 M)
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O K. KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR DSC RECORDS, KANNUR, NOW
RESIDING AT PADMALAYAM HOUSE, PADIYOOR P.O, IRITTY
(VIA), KANNUR-, PIN - 670703
5 KUNHI KANNAN. P. (EX. LNK-15302152 L),
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O KUNHIKANNAN (LATE), DSC RECORDS, KANNUR, NOW
RESIDING AT PATTAMMADATHIL HOUSE, AMMANAPARA P.O,
PARIYARAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670502
W.P.(C).No.39880 of 2023
2
2026:KER:7742
BY ADV SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
(DEFENCE), MINISTRY OF DEFENCE NEW DELHI, PIN -
110011
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL
DIRECTOR GENERAL DSC, GENERAL STAFF BRANCH
INTEGRATED HQ OF MOD (ARMY), WEST BLOCK-111, R.K.
PURAM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066
3 CHIEF RECORD OFFICER
DSC RECORDS, MILL ROAD, KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670013
4 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, (PENSION),
ALLAHABAD, U.P, PIN - 210014
BY ADV SHRI.DAYASINDHU SHREEHARI N.S., SENIOR PANEL
COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.39880 of 2023
3
2026:KER:7742
JUDGMENT
The petitioners were working with Defence Security Corps (DSC), after they have been discharged from the Indian Army. Admittedly, respective petitioners did not have the minimum 15 years of service in DSC so as to avail pension under the provisions of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008. Some of the petitioners have a case that their prior service in the Army also requires to be reckoned and with that prayer, the petitioners had already approached the Armed Forces Tribunal and since the decision went against them, the petitioners have already filed writ petitions before this Court and those writ petitions are pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court as specifically averred in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. However, through this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the provisions of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, more particularly Paragraph 47 thereto as unconstitutional. They also seek for a declaration that they are entitled for service pension without insisting for the 15 years of service in DSC with reference to the provisions of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008. W.P.(C).No.39880 of 2023 4
2026:KER:7742
2. Heard Sri.B. Harish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri.N.S.Daya Sindhu Shree Hari, the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petition is raised, contending that it is for the petitioners to approach the Tribunal.
4. However, Sri.B.Harish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on the judgment of the constitution bench of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others (AIR 1997 SC 1125) to contend that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not ousted as specifically laid down by the Apex Court in Paragraph 93.
5. I have considered the preliminary objection raised by the Senior Panel Counsel on behalf of the respondents as also the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. In paragraph 93 of the judgment of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra), it has been categorically found as under:-
W.P.(C).No.39880 of 20235
2026:KER:7742 "93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional setup, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules.
However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the concerned High Court may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal."
(Underline supplied)
7. In view of the specific findings contained in Paragraph 93 W.P.(C).No.39880 of 2023 6 2026:KER:7742 extracted above, I am of the opinion that vires of the subordinate legislations / rules can also be tested by the Tribunal.
8. In the case at hand, the provision of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 is challenged on the allegation that the same is ultra vires the Constitution of India. In my opinion, the provisions of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, being only a subordinate leglisation, with reference to the provisions of Section 192 of the Army Act, 1950, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, as noticed above, requires to be accepted.
Resultantly, this writ petition would stand dismissed, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal, in accordance with law. Needless to say that the rival contentions are left open for consideration by the Tribunal.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE bng W.P.(C).No.39880 of 2023 7 2026:KER:7742 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 39880 OF 2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE PARTICULARS OF THE FIRST PETITIONER IN THE DSC DATED 18/9/2012 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND PETITIONER IN THE DSC DATED 12/9/2023 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE PARTICULARS OF THE THIRD PETITIONER IN THE DSC DATED 16/11/2010 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE PARTICULARS OF THE 4TH PETITIONER IN THE DSC DATED 18/1/2011 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE PARTICULARS OF THE 5TH PETITIONER IN THE DSC DATED 21/5/2020 EXHIBIT P6 THE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PENSION REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY, 2008