Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH
CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cisf personnel entitlement to liquor benefits (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. legal challenge against discriminatory denial (Para 10 , 13 , 15) |
| 3. government policies regarding welfare of capf personnel (Para 11 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23) |
| 4. court's ruling on equality and access to rights (Para 25) |
| 5. final decision granting rights to retired personnel (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
N. NAGARESH, J.
W.P.(C) No.26101/2024 has been filed by CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association seeking to quash Ext.P7 and to direct the 8th respondent to transfer the database of Ex-CISF personnel residing in the State of Kerala to the 2nd respondent and further direct the 2nd respondent to grant liquor canteen facility to the Ex-CISF personnel residing in the State of Kerala forthwith.
2. W.P.(C) No.3418/2025 has been filed by retired personnel of Central Industrial Security Force seeking to declare that retired CISF personnel from Kerala are entitled to purchase liquor through CLMS System from CRPF Liquor Canteen, Pallippuram or any other Liquor Canteens of CAPFs as per their quota eligibility.
3. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are referred to / marked in
Denial of liquor access to retired CISF personnel violates constitutional equality and the central government’s policy, establishing entitlement to benefits available to other CAPF retired members.
The denial of liquor distribution to retired CISF personnel violates Article 14 of the Constitution, mandating equal treatment for all retired personnel of Central Armed Police Forces.
The transfer policy as contained in standing order No. 07/2015 creates enforceable rights for CRPF personnel, and authorities' actions in effecting transfers must be in accordance with the policy.
The court upheld the authority's power to retire a government servant in public interest after 30 years of service, affirming that procedural safeguards do not always require a show cause notice.
A charged official cannot defend himself by claiming others engaged in similar misconduct; legal authority is required for actions taken in official capacity.
Receiving items without proper permission while on duty constitutes illegal gratification, justifying disciplinary action.
The court affirmed the principle that ex-servicemen, having been appointed under an apparent legal basis, should not face termination or demotion after years of service, emphasizing fairness and just....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
