THANKAPPAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had enrolled in the service of the Border Security Force ('BSF', for short) as a Constable in the year 1969, and pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, he was discharged from service in the year 1977. The allegation against the petitioner was with reference to a scuffle between certain employees of BSF. Contending that the co-accused had only been provided a lesser punishment, the petitioner had challenged his discharge before this Court, unsuccessfully. Later in the year 2016, contending that the petitioner had to undergo treatment for some neurological disorders, he sought for compassionate allowance under the provisions of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules", for brevity). The said claim was sought to be enforced by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was rejected by a learned Single Judge, essentially on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. In an appeal filed at the instance of the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1664 of 2018, by a judgment dtd. 6/9/2018, found that this Court had jurisdiction and directed the authority under the Pension Rules to consider the claim with reference to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India [(2014) 11 SCC 684]. On the basis of the afore directions, Ext.P2 order has been issued by the 2nd respondent, holding that the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefits. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition, seeking to challenge Ext.P2 order issued by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) I have heard Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Dayasindhu Shreehari N.S., the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Pillai, would contend that the consideration made while issuing the order at Ext.P2 was flawed. According to him, the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Rule 41, going by the factual situation recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P1.