IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for Orders in the nature of Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

Delpechitra Acharige Premasiri, No. 9/5, Second Lane, Saman Mawatha, Galavilla Waththa, Homagama.

PETITIONER C.A. Case No. WRT/0429/24 Vs.

1. Lieutenant General Vikum Liyanage, Commander of the Army, Sri Lanka Army Headquarters, Defense Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte.

2. Unit Commander, Ordinance Corps, Panagoda, Homagama.

3. Kamal Gunarathne, Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Defense Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte.

4. Brigadier H.T.W. Vidyananda, Director Personal and Administration, Defense Headquarters Complex, Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte. 5. Colonel N.A.S.C. Perera, Sri Lanka Army Directorate of Pay and Record, Army Cantonment, Panagoda, Homagama.

6. Jagath Dias, Director General of Pensions, Department of Pensions, Maligawatte Secretariat, Maligawatte, Colombo 10.

7. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.

RESPONDENTS BEFORE : K.M.G.H. KULATUNGA, J COUNSEL : Ershan Ariyaratnam with Udeni Gallage for the Petitioner.

Tashya Gajanayake, SC for the Respondents.

SUPPORTED ON : 11.06.2025 DECIDED ON : 27.06.2025

ORDER

K.M.G.H. KULATUNGA, J

1. The petitioner had preferred this application inter alia seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to pay the pension of the petitioner. The petitioner had joined the Sri Lanka Army as a Technical Clerk of the Ordinance Corps in February 1971. However, in about

1980 the petitioner moved to be discharged from the Army by purchasing his service from the Army. This is a process by which a soldier could have himself released and leave the Army upon a payment of a certain sum. It was submitted that the petitioner did obtain his release with effect from 15.11.1980. This was communicated by letter dated 23.07.1987 (X-3). It was the submission that due to an administrative delay in obtaining the said release, he was also treated as a deserter. However, that was rectified by X-3.

2. That being so, the petitioner had at some point thereafter, made a request by letter dated 18.07.1994 (X-4) seeking relief on the basis of political victimization. This request had been forwarded to the Cabinet, and a Committee appointed by the Cabinet had recommended that the petitioner be re-enlisted without arrears of pay, increments, or any other allowances (X-5). As evident from X-7, this had been then communicated to the relevant unit of the Sri Lanka Army. The petitioner alleges that there was no communication until the lapse of some time and he was informed of this decision somewhere in September 1999. He had then by letter dated 27.09.1999 (X-9) informed that he would consider the said re-enlistment if he would be entitled to a pension. Then, once again by letter dated 05.05.2000 (X-10) he had written to the President seeking that the Committee decision to be reconsidered to enable him to obtain a pension. Upon further communication between the petitioner and the Sri Lanka Army, the petitioner had been informed by letter dated 11.04.2016 (X-16) that there is no basis to consider his request for a pension.

3. Long thereafter on 05.07.2024 the petitioner had preferred this application seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pay him a pension.

4. The learned State Counsel for the respondent primarily raised the objections of undue delay and laches. The petitioner certainly had been informed of the recommendation to reinstate without arrears of pay increments or any other allowances at least by September 1999. His position has been that he would report and serve provided he is entitled to a pension. The recommendation of the Committee clearly does not grant him a right to a pension. In any event, the petitioner would be entitled to whatever benefit only if he had first accepted