The order of rejection dated 9.6.2016 rejecting the claim of the writ petition for granting monthly pension is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that there was an error in calculating the qualifying service rendered by the writ petitioner and an erroneous rejection order was passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that citing all these reasons, respondents 1 and 2 have to re-consider the entire issue in the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 25.7.2016. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed out of an error in the calculation of the qualifying service rendered by the writ petitioner. Thus, it is suffice to remit the matter back to the respondents 1 and 2, for reconsideration.
3. Considering the restricted submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner, the impugned order issued by the third respondent in proceedings dated 9.6.2016 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent to reconsider the entire issue on merits and in accordance with law and take appropriate decision in this regard as early as possible, by providing opportunities to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
07-08-2017 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.