The petitioner, having completed 9 years and 8 months of service, is entitled to pension under Rule 40 read with Rule 49(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the court interpreted the rules liberally to ensure the petitioner's entitlement.

JUDGMENT

V. Narasingh, J. - The petitioner being duly selected was appointed as a constable under the Opposite Party No. 2 (Deputy Inspector General, CISF, NEZ, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata) on 30.3.82.

2. He was dismissed from service by order dated 30.11 1991. The said order of dismissal, on the representation of the petitioner was modified to one of compulsory retirement from service with effect from 30.11.1991 by the Revisional Authorities in terms of its order dated 2/3rd of April, 1998 at Annexure-3. In the said order it was mentioned that the petitioner is entitled to draw two third compensation pension and gratuity as admissible.

3. Being aggrieved by the amount of gratuity and compensation pension paid to him in terms of the order at Annexure-3, the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No. 15549/2013 with a prayer to modify the punishment order and granting pension. By order dated 5.3.2014, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the Opposite Party No. 2 to dispose of the appeal keeping in view sub Rule-3 of Rule 40 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (herein after referred to as CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972).

4. The Opposite Party No. 2 having rejected the grievance of the Petitioner by order dated 07.05.2014 at Annexure-10 holding that the petitioner is not eligible for pension as he has not completed 10 years qualifying service in terms of Rule 49 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, the present Writ Petition has been filed assailing the said order of rejection at Annexure-10.

5. The prayer in the Writ Petition is quoted hereunder for convenience of ready reference;

' i). To direct the Opposite Party No.3 to modify the order under Annexure-3 to the extent that the petitioner be compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 13.2.98 not from 30.11.91.

ii). To direct the Opposite Parties to allow the pension of the petitioner as per Rule 33,40 and 39 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.

iii). To direct the Opposite Parties to release arrear pension of the petitioner with 18% interest.

iv). To quash the order dtd.7.5.14 under Annexure-10. 

6. It is apt to state here that during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction submitted that he does not want to press the prayer-i as quoted above. As such the Writ Petition is confined to prayers at ii, iii, and iv as above.

7. At the outset learned counsel for the Union of India, Shri D.R. Bhokta, CGC raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present Writ Petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. And, relied on the decision of the apex Court in the Case of Oil & Natural Gas commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu reported in (1994) volume 4 SCC 711 and the order of this court dated 27.1.1997 in OJC No. 4760 of 1992 relating to the very same petitioner.

8. On a bare perusal of the impugned order of rejection of petitioner's prayer for recalculation of his emoluments in the light of the order of compulsory retirement, it is seen that the same was communicated to the petitioner at his residential address in the district of Bhadrak, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgement of the apex court in the case of Shanti Devi Alias Shanti Mishra vs. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 10 SCC 766. It is apposite to state here that in Utpal Kumar Basu(Supra), which is relied on by the learned counsel for the Union of India, it was held by the apex court referring to the principle of 'forum convenience' that the Writ Petition is maintainable in the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which one resides and more so in the case of a compulsorily retired employee like the present petitioner.

9. Hence applying the law laid down by the apex court in the case of Shanti Devi (supra), in the factual matrix of the case at hand, the challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the presen