PRAKASH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BOARDER ROADS
LAWS(KER)-2003-1-80
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on January 16,2003

PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BOARDER ROADS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner is a retired employee of the GREF. He applied for voluntary retirement from service on medical grounds. But the petitioner is not being paid pension for the reason that he has not completed 20 years of service. The representation filed by the petitioner claiming pension has been rejected by Ext. P3 order dated 4.9.2002. The stipulation contained in R.48A(1) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules is challenged by the petitioner as unconstitutional and therefore, invalid. According to him, the fixation of minimum 20 years as qualifying service is highly arbitrary and unjust.
(2.) A Division Bench of this Court, in Pankajakshy v. George Mathew ( 1987 (2) KLT 723 ) has succinctly stated the grounds available for challenging the validity of a subordinate legislation. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows: - " 12. Thus, the rule made under a statute by an authority delegated for the purpose can be challenged on the ground (1) that it is ultra vires of the Act; (2) it is opposed to the Fundamental rights; (3) it is opposed to other plenary laws. To ascertain whether a rule is ultra vires of the Act, the Court can go into the question (a) whether it contravenes expressly or impliedly any of the provisions of the statute; (b) whether it achieves the intent and object of the Act; and (c) whether it is "unreasonable" to be manifestly arbitrary, unjust or partial implying thereby want of authority to make such rules." Going by the above principle, the petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to declare the said Rule as unconstitutional is rejected. The ground for rejecting the petitioner's claim for pension contained in Ext. P3 that he did not complete 20 years of service can in no way be said to be illegal or arbitrary. His claim for reinstatement in service made in Ext. P3 has been rejected for the reason he was discharged from service on request. There is nothing wrong with the said stand. Accordingly, the challenge against Ext. P3 also fails and the Original Petition is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.