1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3136 OF 2015 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3969 OF 2013) BABURAJ & ORS. ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR. ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3137-3164 OF 2015 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NOS.13319-13346 OF 2014) AND WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3165-3168 OF 2015 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NOS.10148-10151 OF 2013) O R D E R 1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 2. The issue that arises in these appeals is whether a person who has retired from the military service and joined civil service is required to refund the monetary benefits (including bonus and gratuity, if
2 any) from his military service to become eligible for the higher grade of pay in the civil service? 3. Since the issues are identical in all these appeals, for the purpose of convenient disposal, we would only refer to the facts in Baburaj's case ( i.e. Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.3969 of 2013). 4. The facts of the lead case are: the appellant(s) are ex-servicemen who had completed approximately 17 years of military service. After their discharge from the military service, they had joined the civil services in the respondent-State as non-gazetted officers, that is, Drivers in the Police Department. 5. The respondent-State had passed Government Order, G.O.(P) No.720/86/Fin, dated 23.10.1986, stipulating that in case of ex-servicemen who are discharged from the military services on their own request, their military service shall not be counted for any benefit for civil pension. Later, a circular dated 06.11.1992 was issued by the respondent-State to the effect that the military service which counts for civil
3 pension would be reckoned as qualifying service for granting higher grades of pay to non-gazetted officers. By a subsequent Government Order, G.O.(P) No.930/93(2)/Fin, dated 08.12.1993, it was declared that the military service which counts for civil pension would be reckoned for computing the qualifying service for the grant of first higher grade only. The said Government Order was followed by another order, G.O. (P) No.622/93/Fin., dated 26.11.2003, whereby it was clarified that the aforesaid grant of higher grade pay would only be applicable to non-gazetted and gazetted officers. A further clarification, dated 05.08.2005, was issued to the effect that the military service which counts for civil pension would be taken into account in computing qualifying service for grant of one higher grade pay with effect from 01.03.1992. 6. Based on the aforesaid, after completion of the qualifying service of 13 years in the State civil service, the appellants were considered eligible for the grant of higher grade of pay scale and consequently, awarded increments by order No.A1/17775, dated 31.08.2005. Thereafter, on 17.06.2006, the appellants
4 were issued a show cause notice and were informed that in an audit conducted by the Accountant General in the Police Head Quarter certain defects were noticed in the aforesaid grant of higher grade of pay and it was further noticed that the same was not in accordance with the guidelines and thus, the said grant was withdrawn. Further, it was clarified that in terms of Rule 8(c) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short, “the Rules”), the appellants are only entitled to obtain higher grade of pay in civil service, if the retirement benefits from military service are refunded by them and thus, the appellants were directed to either surrender the retirement benefits (including bonus and gratuity, if any) received by them from their military service along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of receipt till the date of refund to obtain higher grade pay scale or else the benefit of the higher grade would be withdrawn and appropriate orders would be passed. 7. The respondent-State, after affording an opportunity to the appellants for filing their reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, passed an order, dated
5 12.09.2006, reiterating the view taken under the said notice and being bound by the interpretation accorded to Rule 8(c) of the Rules in the audit objection, has cancelled the grant of higher pay scale to the appellants. 8. Being aggrieved by the order passed, the appellants had approached the Writ Court. The appellants had contended that Rule 8(c) of the Rules relied upon by the respondent-State to cancel the grant of higher grade of pay is misplaced as the said Rule applies only to the grant of pension and thus, is inapplicable to the case on hand and therefore, the Government Order and Circulars issued by the respondent-State from time to time giving benefit of higher grade alone are applicable depending upon the number of years of qualifying service and the service rendered by the appellants in the civil service of respondent-State. Further, the appellants had contended that the Government Order, dated 26.11.2003 does not stipulate that refund of retirement benefits from military service was a pre-condition for grant of higher grade and that the words 'civil pension' contained
6 therein do not remotely refer to any provision contained in the Rules and thus, the said Rules cannot be read into the said Government Order. The respondent-State has submitted that the necessity to refer to the word 'civil pension' in the said Government Order has to be understood in the sense that the benefit extended thereunder is applicable to the ex-servicemen, only if the conditions envisaged under Rule 8(c) are complied with and thus, by virtue of Rule 8(c) read with the said Government Order, it is clear that conditions under both require to be complied with for entitlement of the benefits extended to the appellants under the said Government Order. 9. The learned Single Judge has opined that since pension is payable only at the end of one's service, therefore the only intention reflected from Rule 8(c) is that re-employed ex-servicemen, who have not earned a pension for their military service, but have received bonus, gratuity will be entitled to get pension on retirement from State civil services subject to returning the bonus, gratuity already drawn by them from Defence Department and thus, under the said Rule there is no
7 stipulation for compliance to earn a higher grade. Learned Single Judge has further noticed that the said Government Order also does not stipulate either return or refund of all the benefits paid to the appellants by way of money on their retirement from the military services in order to earn higher grade. Therefore, the learned Judge has concluded that the Rule and the relevant Government Order being pertinent to two different parts of service- pension and grant of higher grade pay, cannot be read in consonance so as to determine grades of higher pay and further that the impugned order stating that the benefits already sanctioned to the appellants are in violation of the Rules cannot be refunded is bad in law. Therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notice and the impugned order therein, declaring that higher grade was rightly granted to the appellants based on Government Order, dated 26.11.2003 reckoning the past military service of the appellants as qualifying service for grant of higher grade, by judgement and order dated 30.01.2008. 10. The respondent-State, aggrieved by the said judgment and order, had carried the matter by way of an
8 appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench has held that in absence of any stipulation under the said Government Order to require refund of the retirement benefits from the military service as a pre-condition to grant of higher grade of pay, the respondent-State is also bound to count the military service for the grant of higher grade of pay to the appellants, by its judgment and order dated 01.03.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent-State. 11. Thereafter, a review petition came to be filed by the State, inter alia , bringing to the notice of the Court that Rule 8(c) of the Rules was not taken into consideration by the Court while disposing of the Writ Appeal. Noticing the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the Division Bench had allowed the review petition and had directed that the Writ Appeal is required to be re-heard. 12. In Review, the High Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties to the lis and held that the conditions which enable an ex-serviceman to earn civil pension under Rule 8(c) apply mutatis mutandis to
9 ex-servicemen, who seek benefit of higher grade as per the relevant Government Order, dated 26.11.2003. The High Court has noticed the word “civil pension” as included in the said Government Order and observed that if the intention of the State Government was to allow the higher grade of pay to the appellants immediately after acquiring the required number of qualifying service, there was no need to use the word 'civil pension' with reference to reckoning the military service. Since, that is not the intention of the respondent-State, the conscious use of word “civil pension” cannot be ignored and the principles under Rule 8(c) insofar as the pension is concerned would apply equally to calculation of higher grade of pay. Therefore, the High Court by its judgment and order dated 12.09.2012 has allowed the review and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench. 13. We have heard Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Ms.Bina Madhavan, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
10 14. Shri Giri would rely upon Rule 8(c) of Part-III of the Rules and submit that the said Rule only applies for the purpose of granting pension to a civil servant provided he refunds all the monetary benefits that he has received from his military service and the said Rule cannot be resorted to while ascertaining grant of the higher grade pay scale in the civil service for ex-servicemen. 15. Per contra , Ms. Madhavan would submit that apart from Rule 8(c) of the Rules which envisages that a person who has served in the military service, if he has to be eligible for grant of higher grade pay scales, has to necessarily refund the monetary benefits he had obtained in the military service. The learned counsel has also brought to our notice the Government Order(P) issued by the State Government in No.764/81 (384) Fin., dated 16.11.1981, Rules 91 to 95 of the Extra-Ordinary Pension Rules and also G.O. dated 26.11.2003. 16. To appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel, it is profitable to notice Rule 8(c) of Part-III of the Rules. It is extracted as under:
11 “ Ex-servicemen re-employed in Civil Service shall be allowed to count their Military Service other than War Service in the Armed Forces of India from 1 st April 1946 which is non-pensionable under Military Rules but which terminated before a pension has been earned in respect of it for purpose of civil pension, in cases of retirement from Civil Service on or after 14.11.1966; Provided that the bonus or gratuity, if any, received for the period of Military Service by the person concerned from the Defence Department is refunded to that Department; Provided also that the person concerned is not in receipt of any military pension in respect of his Military Service. Breaks between Military Service and Civil Service shall be condoned in accordance with the Government Decision No.3 above. The pensionary charges in respect of Military Service other than War Service will be borne by the Government of India on a service share basis in accordance with the normal rules in Appendix III B, IV of the Kerala Account Code, Vol.I”. 17. The Government Order, dated 16.11.1981, referred to by the respondent-State also requires to be noticed. The said order is reproduced as under: “ Counting of War Service and Military Service for higher grade. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Public Services-Higher Grade to Non-Gazetted Officers counting of War Service and Military Service – Orders issued.
12 ========================================= G.O.(P)764/81 (384) Fin. Dated, Trivandrum, 16 th November, 1981. ========================================= Read:- (i) G.O.MS.439/79/GAD dated 1-8-1979. (ii)General Education (J) Department's letter No.67835/J3/75/G, Edn.dated 14-5-1978 addressed to all Regional Deputy Directors and Assistant Educational Officers. (iii)Lr.No.SB-2/9982/81 dated 25-8-1981 from the Director, Rajya Sainik Board, Trivandrum. O R D E R In the G.O. read as first paper above, Government issued orders allowing the benefit of a higher grade, with effect from 1-7-1979, to all Non-Gazetted Officers who remain in the entry grade without a promotion in the normal course, on completion of 13 years of service in the entry grade. It has been pointed out that as per the Government letter read as second paper above, war service and military service which count for pension will be reckoned for computing the qualifying service required for the grant of higher grade to teachers and as such it has been represented that war service and military service may also be reckoned for granting higher grade to Non-Gazetted Officers as allowed to teachers. The Director, Rajya Sainik Board, Trivandrum in his letter read as third paper above, has recommended this suggestion. 2. Government have considered the proposal in detail and are pleased to order that war/military service which counts for civil pension will also be reckoned for computing the 13 year qualifying service for the grant of the benefit of higher grade in respect of Non-Gazetted Officers. Civilian Service under Military will not, however, count for higher
13 grade. 3. These orders will take effect from 1-7-1979. By order of the Governor, M.George, Joint Secretary (Fin.)” (emphasis supplied) 18. Part III of the Rules relates to the payment of pension in the respondent-State civil services. Rule 8 therein specifically deals with military service, and the conditions for reckoning of military service to assess civil pension are contemplated under Rule 8(c). Ex-servicemen who are re-employed in civil service, to enable them to earn civil pension after retirement from State service, they have to comply with the conditions contained therein. Rule 8(c) refers to a situation that ex-servicemen should be re-employed in civil service and he must have retired under military service before he earned a pension. It is also subject to two conditions contained under proviso (1) and proviso (2). The first proviso envisages return of bonus or gratuity, if any received for the period of military service rendered by the Ex-servicemen. He has to return the said amount to
14 the Defence Department from where he received bonus or gratuity if he opts to have civil pension on his retirement. The second proviso disentitles a civil servant, who is an ex-serviceman from receiving State pension if he is already receiving military pension. The said Rule 8(c) only talks about civil pension and does not refer to any other stage of civil service rendered by an ex-serviceman. 19. The Government Order, dated 26.11.2003, extracted above talks of conditions for grant of higher grade of pay to the ex-servicemen employed in civil services. It contemplates that military service which counts for pension will be reckoned for computing the qualifying service required for the grant of higher grade to non-gazetted officers. This Government Order particularly mentions that military service which counts for civil pension will also be reckoned for computing the 13 year qualifying service for the grant of the benefit of higher grade in respect of non-gazetted officers and thus confers such benefit on to the appellants. It does not mention any conditions for such benefit and also lacks reference, explicit or implicit, to any condition
15 which may require to be fulfilled before availing the benefits granted thereunder. 20. We ought to be mindful of the nature and the context of benefits envisaged under the Government Order and the Rule to understand the ambit of their operation. While the higher grade is sanctioned during the service of an employee, pension is payable to him at the end of his service. A conjoint reading of Rule 8(c) of Part-III of the Rules and also the said Government Order makes it clear that Rule 8(c) would apply only for quantification of the pensionary benefits payable to a civil servant after he retires, on attaining the age of superannuation in the civil service. Rule 8(c) contemplates that if an ex-serviceman desires to avail the civil pension, he has to necessarily refund the monetary benefit that he has received from his military service. The said rule does not speak of its application for granting of the higher grade in the civil service. Thus, by omission to extend its application as qualification for eligibility to higher grade of pay, the respondent-State has restricted its applicability to only pensionary benefits.
16 21. In spite of expression “Military Service which counts for civil pension”, in the absence of condition to refund the terminal benefits drawn by them under the Government Order to secure grant of higher grade, no such compliance can be read into the said Government Order or be insisted upon the appellants. At this juncture, the reason behind inclusion of condition for refund of benefits derived from military service to earn civil pension envisaged at Rule 8(c) would be clear, that is, the principle that no person shall avail benefit of life-long retirement benefits from two services under the State or Union. 22. Therefore, what can be deduced from the above discussion is that the Government Order and the Rule 8(c) of the Rules operate in different fields, that is, grant of higher grade of pay and grant of pensionary benefits. While Rule 8(c) applies to computation of pension on retirement from civil services in the State and does not bar grant of an appropriate higher grade of pay to a re-employed ex-serviceman in civil services, the Government Order operates with respect to grant of higher
17 grade of pay alone and does not contemplate conditions for grant of pension. Thus in principle the said Rule postulates that an employee, being an ex-serviceman, should not avail the benefit of pension from both- the military and the civil services. The Government Order does not overlap on the domains of principles embodied in the said Rule and thus cannot be read with the Rule to erroneously conclude that unless the retiral benefits from military service are refunded to the respondent-State, the military service of such ex-servicemen would not be considered as qualifying for grant of higher grade. The stipulations contained in Rule 8(c) cannot be read with the eligibility conditions for grant of higher grade of pay in the absence of any specific incorporation in the Government Order. 23. In our view, the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court were incorrect in applying Rule 8(c) of the Rules to deny the benefit of the higher grade to the appellants-herein.
18 24. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court and restore the order(s) passed by the learned Single Judge. C.A.Nos.3137-3164/2015 @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.13319-13346/2014 and C.A.Nos. 3165-3168/2015 @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.10148-10151/2013 : 25. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(C) No.3969 of 2013, these appeals are also disposed of in the same terms, conditions, observations and directions. Ordered accordingly. ..............CJI. (H.L. DATTU) ................J. (ARUN MISHRA) NEW DELHI; MARCH 25, 2015
19 ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3969/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/09/2012 in WA No. 1308/2008 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam) BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s) (interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) Nos. 13319-13346/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) Nos. 10148-10151/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 25/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr.V.Giri, Sr.Adv. Mr. M. P. Vinod,Adv. Mr.Atul Shanker Vinod, Adv. Mr.Dileep Pillai, Adv. Ms.Neelam Saini,Adv. Dr.J.N.Dubey, Sr.Adv. Mr.Anurag Dubey, Adv. Mr. S. R. Setia,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv.
20 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Civil Appeal No.3136 of 2015 is allowed and the rest of the appeals are disposed in terms of the order passed in C.A.No.3136 of 2015. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Asstt.Registrar (Signed order is placed on the file)
ÞÎ 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3136 OF 2015 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.3969 OF 2013) BABURAJ & ORS. ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR. ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3137-3164 OF 2015 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NOS.13319-13346 OF 2014) AND WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3165-3168 OF 2015 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NOS.10148-10151 OF 2013) O R D E R 1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. 2. The issue that arises in these appeals isSignature Not Verified whetherDigitally signed byRamana Venkata Ganti a person who has retired from the militaryDate: 2015.04.0115:48:34 ISTReason: service and joined civil service is required to refund the monetary benefits (including bonus and gratuity, if 2any) from his military service to become eligible for thehigher grade of pay in the civil service?3. Since the issues are identical in all theseappeals, for the purpose of convenient disposal, we wouldonly refer to the facts in Baburaj's case (i.e. CivilAppeal @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.3969 of 2013).4. The facts of the lead case are: the appellant(s)
are ex-servicemen who had completed approximately 17years of military service. After their discharge from themilitary service, they had joined the civil services inthe respondent-State as non-gazetted officers, that is,Drivers in the Police Department.5. The respondent-State had passed GovernmentOrder, G.O.(P) No.720/86/Fin, dated 23.10.1986,stipulating that in case of ex-servicemen who aredischarged from the military services on their ownrequest, their military service shall not be counted forany benefit for civil pension. Later, a circular dated06.11.1992 was issued by the respondent-State to theeffect that the military service which counts for civil 3pension would be reckoned as qualifying service forgranting higher grades of pay to non-gazetted officers.By a subsequent Government Order, G.O.(P)No.930/93(2)/Fin, dated 08.12.1993, it was declared thatthe military service which counts for civil pension wouldbe reckoned for computing the qualifying service for thegrant of first higher grade only. The said GovernmentOrder was followed by another order, G.O. (P)No.622/93/Fin., dated 26.11.2003, whereby it wasclarified that the aforesaid grant of higher grade paywould only be applicable to non-gazetted and gazettedofficers. A further clarification, dated 05.08.2005, wasissued to the effect that the military service whichcounts for civil pension would be taken into account incomputing qualifying service for grant of one highergrade pay with effect from 01.03.1992.6. Based on the aforesaid, after completion of thequalifying service of 13 years in the State civilservice, the appellants were considered eligible for thegrant of higher grade of pay scale and consequently,
awarded increments by order No.A1/17775, dated31.08.2005. Thereafter, on 17.06.2006, the appellants 4were issued a show cause notice and were informed that inan audit conducted by the Accountant General in thePolice Head Quarter certain defects were noticed in theaforesaid grant of higher grade of pay and it was furthernoticed that the same was not in accordance with theguidelines and thus, the said grant was withdrawn.Further, it was clarified that in terms of Rule 8(c) ofPart III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short, "theRules"), the appellants are only entitled to obtainhigher grade of pay in civil service, if the retirementbenefits from military service are refunded by them andthus, the appellants were directed to either surrenderthe retirement benefits (including bonus and gratuity, ifany) received by them from their military service alongwith simple interest at 6% per annum from the date ofreceipt till the date of refund to obtain higher gradepay scale or else the benefit of the higher grade wouldbe withdrawn and appropriate orders would be passed.7. The respondent-State, after affording anopportunity to the appellants for filing their reply tothe aforesaid show cause notice, passed an order, dated 512.09.2006, reiterating the view taken under the saidnotice and being bound by the interpretation accorded toRule 8(c) of the Rules in the audit objection, hascancelled the grant of higher pay scale to theappellants.8. Being aggrieved by the order passed, theappellants had approached the Writ Court. The appellantshad contended that Rule 8(c) of the Rules relied upon by
the respondent-State to cancel the grant of higher gradeof pay is misplaced as the said Rule applies only to thegrant of pension and thus, is inapplicable to the case onhand and therefore, the Government Order and Circularsissued by the respondent-State from time to time givingbenefit of higher grade alone are applicable dependingupon the number of years of qualifying service and theservice rendered by the appellants in the civil serviceof respondent-State. Further, the appellants hadcontended that the Government Order, dated 26.11.2003does not stipulate that refund of retirement benefitsfrom military service was a pre-condition for grant ofhigher grade and that the words 'civil pension' contained 6therein do not remotely refer to any provision containedin the Rules and thus, the said Rules cannot be read intothe said Government Order. The respondent-State hassubmitted that the necessity to refer to the word 'civilpension' in the said Government Order has to beunderstood in the sense that the benefit extendedthereunder is applicable to the ex-servicemen, only ifthe conditions envisaged under Rule 8(c) are compliedwith and thus, by virtue of Rule 8(c) read with the saidGovernment Order, it is clear that conditions under bothrequire to be complied with for entitlement of thebenefits extended to the appellants under the saidGovernment Order.9. The learned Single Judge has opined that sincepension is payable only at the end of one's service,therefore the only intention reflected from Rule 8(c) isthat re-employed ex-servicemen, who have not earned apension for their military service, but have receivedbonus, gratuity will be entitled to get pension onretirement from State civil services subject to returningthe bonus, gratuity already drawn by them from Defence
Department and thus, under the said Rule there is no 7stipulation for compliance to earn a higher grade.Learned Single Judge has further noticed that the saidGovernment Order also does not stipulate either return orrefund of all the benefits paid to the appellants by wayof money on their retirement from the military servicesin order to earn higher grade. Therefore, the learnedJudge has concluded that the Rule and the relevantGovernment Order being pertinent to two different partsof service- pension and grant of higher grade pay, cannotbe read in consonance so as to determine grades of higherpay and further that the impugned order stating that thebenefits already sanctioned to the appellants are inviolation of the Rules cannot be refunded is bad in law.Therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the writpetition and quashed the show cause notice and theimpugned order therein, declaring that higher grade wasrightly granted to the appellants based on GovernmentOrder, dated 26.11.2003 reckoning the past militaryservice of the appellants as qualifying service for grantof higher grade, by judgement and order dated 30.01.2008.10. The respondent-State, aggrieved by the saidjudgment and order, had carried the matter by way of an 8appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. TheDivision Bench has held that in absence of anystipulation under the said Government Order to requirerefund of the retirement benefits from the militaryservice as a pre-condition to grant of higher grade ofpay, the respondent-State is also bound to count themilitary service for the grant of higher grade of pay tothe appellants, by its judgment and order dated01.03.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by therespondent-State.
11. Thereafter, a review petition came to be filedby the State, inter alia, bringing to the notice of theCourt that Rule 8(c) of the Rules was not taken intoconsideration by the Court while disposing of the WritAppeal. Noticing the aforesaid aspect of the matter, theDivision Bench had allowed the review petition and haddirected that the Writ Appeal is required to be re-heard.12. In Review, the High Court has considered therival submissions of the parties to the lis and held thatthe conditions which enable an ex-serviceman to earncivil pension under Rule 8(c) apply mutatis mutandis to 9ex-servicemen, who seek benefit of higher grade as perthe relevant Government Order, dated 26.11.2003. The HighCourt has noticed the word "civil pension" as included inthe said Government Order and observed that if theintention of the State Government was to allow the highergrade of pay to the appellants immediately afteracquiring the required number of qualifying service,there was no need to use the word 'civil pension' withreference to reckoning the military service. Since, thatis not the intention of the respondent-State, theconscious use of word "civil pension" cannot be ignoredand the principles under Rule 8(c) insofar as the pensionis concerned would apply equally to calculation of highergrade of pay. Therefore, the High Court by its judgmentand order dated 12.09.2012 has allowed the review and setaside the judgment and order passed by the DivisionBench.13. We have heard Shri V. Giri, learned seniorcounsel for the appellants and Ms.Bina Madhavan, learnedcounsel for the respondent-State. 1014. Shri Giri would rely upon Rule 8(c) of Part-III
of the Rules and submit that the said Rule only appliesfor the purpose of granting pension to a civil servantprovided he refunds all the monetary benefits that he hasreceived from his military service and the said Rulecannot be resorted to while ascertaining grant of thehigher grade pay scale in the civil service forex-servicemen.15. Per contra, Ms. Madhavan would submit that apartfrom Rule 8(c) of the Rules which envisages that a personwho has served in the military service, if he has to beeligible for grant of higher grade pay scales, has tonecessarily refund the monetary benefits he had obtainedin the military service. The learned counsel has alsobrought to our notice the Government Order(P) issued bythe State Government in No.764/81 (384) Fin., dated16.11.1981, Rules 91 to 95 of the Extra-Ordinary PensionRules and also G.O. dated 26.11.2003.16. To appreciate the submissions made by thelearned counsel, it is profitable to notice Rule 8(c) ofPart-III of the Rules. It is extracted as under: 11 "Ex-servicemen re-employed in Civil Service shall be allowed to count their Military Service other than War Service in the Armed Forces of India from 1st April 1946 which is non-pensionable under Military Rules but which terminated before a pension has been earned in respect of it for purpose of civil pension, in cases of retirement from Civil Service on or after 14.11.1966; Provided that the bonus or gratuity, if any, received for the period of Military Service by the person concerned from the Defence Department is refunded to that Department; Provided also that the person concerned is not in receipt of any military pension in respect of his Military Service. Breaks between Military Service and Civil Service shall be condoned in accordance with the Government Decision No.3 above. The pensionary charges in respect of Military Service other than War Service will be borne by the Government of India on a service share basis in accordance with the normal rules in
Appendix III B, IV of the Kerala Account Code, Vol.I".17. The Government Order, dated 16.11.1981, referredto by the respondent-State also requires to be noticed.The said order is reproduced as under: "Counting of War Service and Military Service for higher grade. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Public Services-Higher Grade to Non-Gazetted Officers counting of War Service and Military Service - Orders issued. 12 =========================================G.O.(P)764/81 (384) Fin. Dated, Trivandrum, 16thNovember, 1981.=========================================Read:- (i) G.O.MS.439/79/GAD dated 1-8-1979. (ii)General Education (J) Department'sletter No.67835/J3/75/G, Edn.dated 14-5-1978addressed to all Regional Deputy Directors andAssistant Educational Officers. (iii)Lr.No.SB-2/9982/81 dated 25-8-1981from the Director, Rajya Sainik Board,Trivandrum. O R D E R In the G.O. read as first paper above,Government issued orders allowing the benefit ofa higher grade, with effect from 1-7-1979, toall Non-Gazetted Officers who remain in theentry grade without a promotion in the normalcourse, on completion of 13 years of service inthe entry grade. It has been pointed out that asper the Government letter read as second paperabove, war service and military service whichcount for pension will be reckoned for computingthe qualifying service required for the grant ofhigher grade to teachers and as such it has beenrepresented that war service and militaryservice may also be reckoned for granting highergrade to Non-Gazetted Officers as allowed toteachers. The Director, Rajya Sainik Board,Trivandrum in his letter read as third paperabove, has recommended this suggestion.2. Government have considered the proposal indetail and are pleased to order thatwar/military service which counts for civilpension will also be reckoned for computing the13 year qualifying service for the grant of thebenefit of higher grade in respect ofNon-Gazetted Officers. Civilian Service underMilitary will not, however, count for higher 13 grade. 3. These orders will take effect from
1-7-1979. By order of the Governor, M.George, Joint Secretary (Fin.)" (emphasis supplied)18. Part III of the Rules relates to the payment ofpension in the respondent-State civil services. Rule 8therein specifically deals with military service, and theconditions for reckoning of military service to assesscivil pension are contemplated under Rule 8(c).Ex-servicemen who are re-employed in civil service, toenable them to earn civil pension after retirement fromState service, they have to comply with the conditionscontained therein. Rule 8(c) refers to a situation thatex-servicemen should be re-employed in civil service andhe must have retired under military service before heearned a pension. It is also subject to two conditionscontained under proviso (1) and proviso (2). The firstproviso envisages return of bonus or gratuity, if anyreceived for the period of military service rendered bythe Ex-servicemen. He has to return the said amount to 14the Defence Department from where he received bonus orgratuity if he opts to have civil pension on hisretirement. The second proviso disentitles a civilservant, who is an ex-serviceman from receiving Statepension if he is already receiving military pension. Thesaid Rule 8(c) only talks about civil pension and doesnot refer to any other stage of civil service rendered byan ex-serviceman.19. The Government Order, dated 26.11.2003,extracted above talks of conditions for grant of highergrade of pay to the ex-servicemen employed in civilservices. It contemplates that military service whichcounts for pension will be reckoned for computing the
qualifying service required for the grant of higher gradeto non-gazetted officers. This Government Orderparticularly mentions that military service which countsfor civil pension will also be reckoned for computing the13 year qualifying service for the grant of the benefitof higher grade in respect of non-gazetted officers andthus confers such benefit on to the appellants. It doesnot mention any conditions for such benefit and alsolacks reference, explicit or implicit, to any condition 15which may require to be fulfilled before availing thebenefits granted thereunder.20. We ought to be mindful of the nature and thecontext of benefits envisaged under the Government Orderand the Rule to understand the ambit of their operation.While the higher grade is sanctioned during the serviceof an employee, pension is payable to him at the end ofhis service. A conjoint reading of Rule 8(c) of Part-IIIof the Rules and also the said Government Order makes itclear that Rule 8(c) would apply only for quantificationof the pensionary benefits payable to a civil servantafter he retires, on attaining the age of superannuationin the civil service. Rule 8(c) contemplates that if anex-serviceman desires to avail the civil pension, he hasto necessarily refund the monetary benefit that he hasreceived from his military service. The said rule doesnot speak of its application for granting of the highergrade in the civil service. Thus, by omission to extendits application as qualification for eligibility tohigher grade of pay, the respondent-State has restrictedits applicability to only pensionary benefits. 1621. In spite of expression "Military Service whichcounts for civil pension", in the absence of condition torefund the terminal benefits drawn by them under the
Government Order to secure grant of higher grade, no suchcompliance can be read into the said Government Order orbe insisted upon the appellants. At this juncture, thereason behind inclusion of condition for refund ofbenefits derived from military service to earn civilpension envisaged at Rule 8(c) would be clear, that is,the principle that no person shall avail benefit oflife-long retirement benefits from two services under theState or Union.22. Therefore, what can be deduced from the abovediscussion is that the Government Order and the Rule 8(c)of the Rules operate in different fields, that is, grantof higher grade of pay and grant of pensionary benefits.While Rule 8(c) applies to computation of pension onretirement from civil services in the State and does notbar grant of an appropriate higher grade of pay to are-employed ex-serviceman in civil services, theGovernment Order operates with respect to grant of higher 17grade of pay alone and does not contemplate conditionsfor grant of pension. Thus in principle the said Rulepostulates that an employee, being an ex-serviceman,should not avail the benefit of pension from both- themilitary and the civil services. The Government Orderdoes not overlap on the domains of principles embodied inthe said Rule and thus cannot be read with the Rule toerroneously conclude that unless the retiral benefitsfrom military service are refunded to therespondent-State, the military service of suchex-servicemen would not be considered as qualifying forgrant of higher grade. The stipulations contained in Rule8(c) cannot be read with the eligibility conditions forgrant of higher grade of pay in the absence of anyspecific incorporation in the Government Order.
23. In our view, the learned Judges of the DivisionBench of the High Court were incorrect in applying Rule8(c) of the Rules to deny the benefit of the higher gradeto the appellants-herein. 1824. In the result, we allow the appeal, set asidethe impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the HighCourt and restore the order(s) passed by the learnedSingle Judge.C.A.Nos.3137-3164/2015 @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.13319-13346/2014andC.A.Nos. 3165-3168/2015 @ S.L.P.(C)Nos.10148-10151/2013:25. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal @S.L.P.(C) No.3969 of 2013, these appeals are alsodisposed of in the same terms, conditions, observationsand directions. Ordered accordingly. ..............CJI. (H.L. DATTU) ................J. (ARUN MISHRA)NEW DELHI;MARCH 25, 2015 19ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3969/2013(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/09/2012in WA No. 1308/2008 passed by the High Court Of Kerala AtErnakulam)BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s)(interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) Nos. 13319-13346/2014(With Office Report)
SLP(C) Nos. 10148-10151/2013(With Interim Relief and Office Report)Date : 25/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.V.Giri, Sr.Adv. Mr. M. P. Vinod,Adv. Mr.Atul Shanker Vinod, Adv. Mr.Dileep Pillai, Adv. Ms.Neelam Saini,Adv. Dr.J.N.Dubey, Sr.Adv. Mr.Anurag Dubey, Adv. Mr. S. R. Setia,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. 20 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Civil Appeal No.3136 of 2015 is allowed and the rest ofthe appeals are disposed in terms of the order passed inC.A.No.3136 of 2015.(G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi)Court Master Asstt.Registrar (Signed order is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.1 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3969/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/09/2012 in WA No. 1308/2008 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam) BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report) (FOR FINAL DISPOSAL) WITH SLP(C) No. 10148-10151/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 13319-13346/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 24/03/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Mr. Atul Shanker Vinod, Adv. Mr. Dileep Pillai, Adv. Mr. Ajay K Jain, Adv. Mr. Neelam Saini, Adv. Dr. J.N. Dubey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv. Ms. Anu Sawhney, Adv. Mr. S.R. Setia,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List tomorrow, the 25 th March, 2015 as a first item. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar
Listed on : Court No. Item No. Section XIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 5784 (Application for deletion of proforma respondents) IN PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) No. 1331913346 OF 2014 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF. Jayakumar A. & Ors. Etc. Etc. ...Petitioners Versus State of Kerala & Ors. Etc. ..Respondents OFFICE REPORT The matter abovementioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 7 th May, 2014, when the Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Delay condoned. Notice. Tag with SLP(C) Nos. 10148-10151 of 2013 and connected matter.” It is submitted that Counsel for the petitioner has filed an application for deletion of proforma respondents in the matter abovementioned which has been registered as I. A. No. 5784 and the same is included in the SLP paper books. The show cause notice is yet to be issued. That applications in the matter above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chamber. Dated this the 5 th day of June, 2014. Sd/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
è 1 ITEM NOS.17+67 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 3969/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/09/2012 in WA 1308/2008 passed by the HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM) BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondents(s) (With appln.(s) for interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) Nos. 13319-13346/2014 (With Prayer for interim relief and Office Report) AND WITH SLP(C)Nos.10148-10151/2013 (with prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 30/06/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Dr.J.N.Dubey,Sr.Adv. Mr.S.R.Setia, Adv. Mr.Anurag Dubey, Adv. Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Ms.Neelam Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followingSignature Not Verified O R D E RDigitally signed by Prayers made in I.A.Nos.57-64 in S.L.P.Ramana Venkata GantiDate: 2014.06.3015:33:48 IST (C)Nos.133199-13346/2014 is granted since the same has not beenReason: opposed by the other side. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to filethe amended Memo of Parties in two weeks' time finally. List the matters for final disposal on anon-miscellaneous day.
(G V RAMANA) (VINOD KULVI)COURT MASTER ASSTT.REGISTRAR
<ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2014 CC 22096-22123/2013(From the judgement and order dated 12/09/2012 in WANo.253/2011,WA No.305/2011WA No.316/2011WA No.334/2011WANo.342/2011WA No.367/2011WA No.383/2011WA No.386/2011WANo.395/2011WA No.396/2011WA No.404/2011WA No.414/2011WA No.422/2011, WA No.448/2011WA No.498/2011WA No.582/2011WANo.609/2011WA No.611/2011WA No.635/2011WA No.642/2011WANo.760/2011 WA 833,WA No.967/2011WA No.995/2011WA No.1080/2011WANo.1106/2011WA No.1107/2011WA No.1191/2011 of TheHIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)JAYAKUMAR A. & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLPand office report)Date: 07/05/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWALFor Petitioner(s) Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Mr. Dileep Pillai, Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Adv. Ms. Neelam Saini, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Notice. Tag with SLP(C) Nos. 10148-10151 of 2013 and connected matter. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar
\204ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3969/2013(From the judgement and order dated 12/09/2012 in WA No.1308/2008of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) NO. 10148-10151 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 25/04/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Mr. Dileep Pillai, Adv. Mr. Ajay K Jain, Adv. Ms. Neelam Saini, Adv. Dr. J.N. Dubey, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.R. Setia, Adv. Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused letter dated 23.04.2014. Three weeks time is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 22096-22123/2013JAYAKUMAR A. & ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)(OFFICE REPORT ON DEFAULT)Date: 15/04/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA (In Chambers)For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Ms. Neelam Saini,Adv. Mr. Atul Shankar Vinod,Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sankar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has filed a copy of the decision rendered by Hon'ble single Judge in SLP(C)No. 3969/2013 and similar orders have been impugned in the other special leave petitions. In view of the aforesaid, the filing of the impugned order in this special leave petition is dispensed with. (SUMAN WADHWA) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
ìITEM NO. 9 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3969/2013(From the judgement and order dated 12/09/2012 in WA No.1308/2008of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)WITH SLP(C) NO. 10148-10151 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 04/04/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Ms. Neelam Saini, Adv. Mr. Atul S. Vinod, Adv. Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Dubey, Adv. for Mr. S.R. Setia, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused letter dated 02.04.2014 in SLP(C) Nos. 10148-10151 of 2013. List the matter after two weeks. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar
\214ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3969/2013(From the judgement and order dated 12/09/2012 in WA No.1308/2008 of theHIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 10148-10151 of 2013(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 28/02/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Ms.Neelam Saini,Adv. for Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Ms.Ila Haldia, Adv. Mr. S.R. Setia, Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the letter dated 26.2.2014. In view of the request made bylearned counsel for the petitioners, four weeks' time is granted for filingthe rejoinder affidavit. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Asstt.Registrar
ªITEM NO.72 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 10148-10151/2013SHOBANA KUMAR M & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 22/11/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.R. Setia,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R All the respondents are granted time, as last chance for filingcounter affidavit. List the matter on 21.1.2014.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |
\214ITEM NO.64 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 10148-10151/2013SHOBANA KUMAR M & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 08/10/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anurag Dubey,Adv. Mr. S.R. Setia,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R File is not received. List the matter on 18.11.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |
8ITEM NO.47 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3969/2013BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 10148-10151 of 2013(With office report)Date: 12/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Mr. S.R. Setia,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RSLP(C) No. 3969/2013 The respondents have not filed counter affidavit in spite of lastchance granted. List the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.SLP(C) NO. 10148-10151 of 2013 Service is complete. All the respondents are granted four weeks' time for filingcounter affidavit. List again on 8.10.2013.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |
L ITEM NO. 6 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10148-10151/2013 (From the judgement and order dated 31/07/2012 & 12/09/2012 in RP No.204/2011, WP No.23825/2008,WA No.305/2011,WA No.498/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM) SHOBANA KUMAR M & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondent(s) (For grant of permission to delete the name of respondent and office report) Date: 05/08/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL For Petitioner(s) Mr.S.R. Setia,Adv. Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Prayer made in the applications is granted. Accordingly, the names of pro forma respondents are deleted from the array of parties at the risk of the petitioners. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Vinod Kulvi ] ||Court Master | |Asstt. Registrar |
\220ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSIA 8-11/2013 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10148-10151/2013(From the judgement and order dated 31/07/2012 in RP No.204/2011 dated12/09/2012 in WP No.23825/2008,WA No.305/2011,WA No.498/2011 of The HIGHCOURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)SHOBANA KUMAR M & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondent(s)(For grant of permission to delete the name of Respondent and officereport )Date: 15/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. S.R. Setia,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter before the Court. (GEETA AHUJA) (INDU POKHRIYAL) SR. P.A. COURT MASTER
\204ITEM NO.64 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3969/2013BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 10148-10151 of 2013(With office report)Date: 09/05/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Neelam Saini,adv. Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Mr.Anurag Dubey,adv. Mr. S.R. SetiaFor Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In SLP(C) No.3969/13 service is complete. All the respondents are granted four more weeks time as a last chance for filing counter affidavit. In SLP(C) No.110148-10151/13 all the respondents are granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit. Contd...2 ITEM NO.64 -2- The I.A. for deletion of the proforma respondents may be listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers. Await orders. List the matter on 12.08.2013.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
˜ITEM NO.101 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3969/2013BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )WITH SLP(C) NO. 10148-10151 of 2013(With office report)Date: 18/03/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Ms.Neelam Saini,adv. Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Mr.Rajesh Pandey,adv. Mr. S.R. Setia,adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In SLP(C) No.3969/13 await return of notice of both the respondents. Ld.counsel for the petitioner seeks four weeks time for filing proof of dasti. In SLP(C) No.10148-10151/13 await return of notice of all the respondents. The application for deletion of proforma respondent may be listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for orders. Await orders. List the matter on 9.05.2013.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
¦ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CC 4427-4430/2013Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013(From the judgement and order dated 31/07/2012 in RP No.204/2011, dated12/09/2012 in WP No.23825/2008,WA No.305/2011WA No.498/2011 of the HIGHCOURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)SHOBANA KUMAR M & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLP and officereport )Date: 01/03/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOIFor Petitioner(s) Dr.J.N.Dubey, Sr.Adv. Mr. S.R. Setia,Adv. Mr.Rajesh Pandey, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Notice. Tag with S.L.P.(C)No.3969/2013. There shall be interim stay of the operation of the impugned judgmentand order until further orders. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3969/2013(From the judgement and order dated 12/09/2012 in WA No.1308/2008 of theHIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)BABURAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and prayer for interim reliefand office report )Date: 01/02/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOIFor Petitioner(s) Mr.V.Giri, Sr.Adv. Mr. M.P. Vinod,Adv. Mr.Dileep Pillai, Adv. Mr.Ajay K.Jain, Adv. Mohd.Sadique, T.A.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for exemption from filing Official Translation isallowed. Notice, returnable in four weeks' time. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. There shall be interim stay of the operation of the impugned judgmentand order until further orders. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Court Master