Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

P.Rajan Vs. Union of India

P.Rajan vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 07, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917979

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
OP.No. 19613 of 2002(I)
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.Rajan

Advocate SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, Adv

Respondent

Union of India

Advocate SRI.N.NAGARESH, Adv

Legal References

Reported In
ILR2010(4)Ker287

Excerpt

.....such fixation contrary to each other. a writ petition filed by another employee challenging one of them was allowed by ext.p5 judgment. the writ appeal filed against ext.p5 judgment     has also been dismissed.    another writ petition viz.,o.p.no.12010/1996, filed by another person in respect of the same subject matter is also stated to be disposed of. in view of the pendency of those proceedings and interim orders therein, the petitioner’s pay had not been refixed to his detriment. going by the age in the affidavit accompanying the original petition, the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. the petitioner seeks the following reliefs;         "i.   to declare that paragraph 5 of exhibit p2 circular is illegal, unconstitutional and ultravires and therefore, unenforceable against the petitioner.         ii.   to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or n commanding the respondents 3 and 4 not to alter the pay fixation made in the case of the petitioner on his re- employment by enforcing paragraph 5 of exhibit p2 circular." 2. no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. as such, the averments of the petitioner in the original petition stand uncontroverted. now that the petitioner has already retired from service and he has received his benefits in accordance with the original fixation, i dispose of this original petition confirming the original fixation of pay as per which he has retired from service and declaring that all service benefits and retirement benefits due to him shall be regulated in accordance with the original fixation of pay as per ext.p1 circular.  

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman, who was discharged from the Defence Service. Thereafter, he was re-employed in the 3rd respondent company. The mode of fixation of pay on such reemployment is prescribed in Ext.P1 circular issued by the 2nd respondent. Based on the same, the petitioner's pay had been fixed. But subsequently circulars were issued regarding such fixation contrary to each other. A writ petition filed by another employee challenging one of them was allowed by Ext.P5 judgment. The writ appeal filed against Ext.P5 judgment     has also been dismissed.   

Another writ petition viz.,O.P.No.12010/1996, filed by another person in respect of the same subject matter is also stated to be disposed of. In view of the pendency of those proceedings and interim orders therein, the petitioner’s pay had not been refixed to his detriment. Going by the age in the affidavit accompanying the original petition, the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation.

The petitioner seeks the following reliefs;        

"i.   to declare that paragraph 5 of Exhibit P2 circular is illegal, unconstitutional and ultravires and therefore, unenforceable against the petitioner.        

ii.   To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or n commanding the respondents 3 and 4 not to alter the pay fixation made in the case of the petitioner on his re- employment by enforcing paragraph 5 of Exhibit P2 Circular."

2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. As such, the averments of the petitioner in the original petition stand uncontroverted. Now that the petitioner has already retired from service and he has received his benefits in accordance with the original fixation, I dispose of this original petition confirming the original fixation of pay as per which he has retired from service and declaring that all service benefits and retirement benefits due to him shall be regulated in accordance with the original fixation of pay as per Ext.P1 circular.  

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial