Kerala High Court
J.Regi Kumar vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2025
2025:KER:53446
WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
J.REGI KUMAR
AGED 43 YEARS
(CT/GD 941163385), AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.JABAMONY,
VETTUVILAI VEEDU, MALAICODE, EDAICODE P O,
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR
SMT.K.R.RENJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI
ROAD, NEW DELHI 110003,
3 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
SOUTHERN SECTOR, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,
ROAD NO.10C, JUBILI HILLS POST, HYDERABAD -33.
4 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE,
PALLIPPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695316.
2025:KER:53446
WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017
2
BY ADVS.
O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC
SHRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:53446
WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who was serving as a Constable with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), on account of some criminal cases being charged against him, was proceeded against and removed from service with effect from 16.03.2013 on account of the unauthorised absence. The afore order was challenged before this Court, and by Ext.P3 judgment, it was positively found that there was no need to have removed the petitioner from service, since the absence was on account of the reasons noticed earlier. This Court also noticed that the petitioner, by himself, reported about the criminal case and hence directed the removal from service as a penalty be changed to "compulsory retirement". It is also further found that the petitioner should also be extended all service benefits, if otherwise eligible. The petitioner is thereafter issued with Ext.P5 pension payment order dated 09.06.2016, as per which the pension is seen calculated at Rs.3,770/-, however, not providing the break-up of the fixation of pension as well. The petitioner, in such circumstances, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the fixation of pension as above, as also seeking a further direction for issuance of an "identity card", which is seen 2025:KER:53446 WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017 4 rejected pursuant to the proceedings at Ext.P6 dated 03.11.2015.
2. Heard Sri.B. Harish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Parshathy S.R., the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents herein.
3. Noticing the contention raised by the petitioner that similarly placed personnel have been extended more pension as evidenced in Ext.P8, this Court on 08.11.2024 had directed the respondents to file a statement as regards the calculation of the pension with reference to the relevant provisions. On the basis of the directions as above, a statement dated 12.12.2024 has been filed by the respondents pointing out that insofar as the petitioner is admittedly "compulsorily retired", the calculation was perfectly correct, going by the provisions of Rule 40 of Central Civil Services (CCS) (Pension) Rules, 1972. A reading of the afore statement would show that the normal pension of the petitioner is calculated at 50% of the last drawn pay and 2/3rd of that 50% is the fixation carried out in Ext.P5.
4. The petitioner, in reply to the afore, has also filed an application seeking to rely on certain additional documents - Exts.P10 and P11 pension payment orders in relation to one 2025:KER:53446 WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017 5 Smt.T.Jaya Singh and Sri.S.Syedali - to point out that the afore individuals were also compulsorily retired like the petitioner herein and, even thereafter, they have been extended the pension at 50% of the last drawn pay and similar treatment has to be extended to the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also sought to place reliance on the issuance of the canteen card to those persons to show that, even as regards those who have been compulsorily retired, canteen cards are being issued and hence petitioner is also entitled to the same.
5. This Court notices that there are two issues arising for consideration in this writ petition - the first one as regards the fixation of the pension pursuant to Ext.P5 and the second one as regards the entitlement of the petitioner for the canteen card, as prayed for.
6. As regards the fixation, it is not in dispute that the provisions of Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are being applied by the respondents herein. The afore provision reads as under:
"40. Compulsory retirement pension (1) A Government servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted, by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or gratuity or both at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than 2025:KER:53446 WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017 6 [full compensation pension] or gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement.
(2) Whenever in the case of a Government servant the President passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less than the[full compensation pension] admissible under these rules, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before such order is passed.
EXPLANATION. - In this sub-rule, the expression "pension" includes gratuity.
(3) A pension granted or awarded under sub-rule (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-rule (2), shall not be less than the amount of [Rupees three hundred and seventy- five] per mensem."
7. A reading of the afore provision would show that, as regards a person who has been compulsorily retired, the pension shall be at a rate "not less than 2/3 rd" and "not more than full compensation pension". Thus, the provision does not say that the pension has to be limited to "2/3 rd" of the pension. It is only the minimum and the maximum that have been prescribed by the provisions of Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is with reference to the afore interpretation of Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 that the fixation pursuant to Ext.P5 is to be noticed.
8. This Court notices the reliance placed by the petitioner on Exts.P8, P10 and P11 - alleged similarly placed persons who have been extended same benefits, insofar as they have also been compulsorily retired from service. Prima facie, on a perusal 2025:KER:53446 WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017 7 of the documents at Exts.P10 and P11, this Court notices that those personnel have also been admittedly "compulsorily retired" as seen from the endorsements contained in the pension payment orders. Even as regards those individuals, as rightly contended by Sri.B.Harish Kumar, this Court further notices that 50% of the last drawn pay is seen extended as the pension with reference to the provisions of Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, in my opinion, if similarly placed persons have been extended the afore benefits, there was no reason why the petitioner who was also compulsorily retired pursuant to the judgment of this Court, is not extended the same treatment. This is all the more so, in view of the nature of the findings contained in Ext.P3 judgment, wherein this Court has categorically found that it is the petitioner himself who had informed the employer as regards the criminal cases charged against him. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that, as regards the first issue, the petitioner is also to be extended the benefit of the fixation which has been granted to the similarly placed persons as seen extended in Exts.P8, P10 and P11. There will be a direction to the respondents to carry out re-fixation with reference to the afore findings.
2025:KER:53446 WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017 8
9. As regards the second issue, the statement filed on behalf of the respondents contends that insofar as the petitioner has been compulsorily retired, there are certain guidelines issued which would show that, as regards those who have been compulsorily retired, they are not entitled for the canteen cards. However, as seen from Ext.P12, Sri.S.Syedali, the personnel covered with Ext.P11 pension payment order, has been issued with the canteen card.
10. In such circumstances, if the canteen cards are being issued to such similarly placed persons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also to be issued the same card.
Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, directing re-fixation of the pension as well as issuance of the canteen card as directed above. Needful to be done in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE GBG 2025:KER:53446 WP(C) NO. 9435 OF 2017 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9435/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P8 A true copy of the relevant rule along with the method of calculation adopted by the CRPF Exhibit P9 A true copy of the judgment in WPC no.
22890/2014 dated 6/1/2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER OF SRI T JAYA SINGH Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER OF SRI S. SYEDALI Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE CANTEEN CARD ISSUED TO SRI. S SYEDALI Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 19.05.2016 EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO P,VIII-1/12 ESTT-II DTD 3/8/12 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 30/1/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 16/3/13 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 1/6/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 23/9/2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 19/5/2016 ALONG WITH PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DTD 9/6/2016 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 3/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT