Lt. Col. Mrs. Indira Balakrishnan, I.N.H.S. Sanjivini, Naval Base, CochIn Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others - Court Judgment |
| Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kochi |
| Feb-09-2010 |
| T.A.No.54 of 2009 (WPC No. of 12127 of 2006 of the High Court of Kerala) |
| K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, MEMBER (J) & LT. GEN. THOMAS MATHEW, PVSM, AVSM, MEMBER (A) |
padmanabhan nair, member (j). when the case was taken up for hearing, the legal officer representing the respondents submitted that in the year 2005 the petitioner filed a petition seeking premature retirement, which was not granted. she was due to retire on 31.5.2006. however, she was given orders of discharge one month prior to retirement, on 30.4.2006, on orders from the competent authority. so, she was given orders of discharge one month short of actual date of retirement. thus, she was denied pension. challenging that order, this application has been filed. 2. it is further submitted by the legal officer that during the pendency of the application/writ petition and especially because of the interim order passed by the high court, the petitioner continued in service till 31.5.2006 and she was allowed to retire on that date and she has been given all consequential benefits, which is allowable to a retired person. so, this application has become infructuous. in the result, the transfer application is closed as infructuous, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the adverse orders, if any, subsequently passed.
PADMANABHAN NAIR, MEMBER (J).
When the case was taken up for hearing, the legal officer representing the respondents submitted that in the year 2005 the petitioner filed a petition seeking premature retirement, which was not granted. She was due to retire on 31.5.2006. However, she was given orders of discharge one month prior to retirement, on 30.4.2006, on orders from the competent authority. So, she was given orders of discharge one month short of actual date of retirement. Thus, she was denied pension. Challenging that order, this application has been filed.
2. It is further submitted by the legal officer that during the pendency of the application/writ petition and especially because of the interim order passed by the High Court, the petitioner continued in service till 31.5.2006 and she was allowed to retire on that date and she has been given all consequential benefits, which is allowable to a retired person. So, this application has become infructuous.
In the result, the Transfer Application is closed as infructuous, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the adverse orders, if any, subsequently passed.