MANDRADA LAXMI Vs. BALAGA RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paralakhemundi in Election Petition No.1 of 2012 allowing application filed by the present opposite Heard further learned counsel for the parties. In this petition the petitioner prays for directing the opposite party -authorities to release pension of the petitioner in accordance with the Rule -40 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules,1972 (in short 'the Rules').

(2.) AFTER being duly selected the petitioner was appointed as a constable in the CISF on 30.03.1982. While continuing as such a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. By order dated 30.11.1991 passed by the Commandant, CISF opposite party no.3, he was dismissed from service. His appeal against the dismissal order was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF -opposite party no.2 by order dated 28.04.1992 (Annexure -1). The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in OJC No.4760 of 1992, which was disposed of on 27.01.1997 with a direction to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, consequent upon which the petitioner filed a revision challenging his punishment before the Inspector General, CISF -opposite party no.4. The revisional authority on consideration disposed of the revision modifying the order of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement from service with effect from 30.11.1991 with entitlement to draw two third compensation pension and gratuity. The revisional order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 2nd/3rd April,1998 by the Deputy Commandant vide Annexure -3. The petitioner having applied for two third compensation pension in terms of Rule 40 of the Rules, he was intimated by letter dated 17.01.2000 (Annexure -4) that since he has been granted gratuity amount of Rs.3,680/ - and compensation pension amount of Rs.4,907/ -, in total Rs.8,587/ -, he was not entitled to any further pension. The petitioner there upon approached this Court in OJC No.17247 of 2001, which was disposed of on 12.08.2008 with a direction to DIG (CISF NEZ Hqrs) to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner within six months, if the same is pending. The petitioner was further granted liberty to submit another memorandum of appeal before the said authority within a period of three weeks to facilitate early disposal of the appeal. The petitioner submits that after disposal of the said writ petition, he submitted appeal before the said authority on 18.08.2008 vide Annexure -6, but vide letter dated 23rd October,2008 of the Deputy Inspector General -opposite party no.2 (Annexure -7) the petitioner was directed to submit the memorandum of appeal as ordered by this Court for taking further action. It is stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that pursuant to such letter the petitioner again submitted appeal on 10.11.2008, which was received by the Deputy Inspector General on 18.11.2008 and copy of the appeal memo was again submitted on 13.12.2008, which are still pending consideration.

(3.) THOUGH no formal counter affidavit has been filed by opposite partyauthorities Mr. Patra has produced before this Court the para -wise comment and some other documents, wherein with reference to the averments made in paragraph -12 of the writ petition, the authorities admitted that the memorandum of appeal was received by DIG, CISF NEZ Hqrs, Kolkata on 18.11.2008, i.e., about more than three months instead of three weeks, after the closing of the case. Mr. Patra admits that the said appeal is pending without being disposed of.