Greetings to the honourable bench.

The Counsel has the humble pleasure of

appearing before this honourable court. The Counsel shall be representing the
petitioner in the present case of Mr George v. Union of Chakrika. The Council
would be taking 10 minutes of the bench’s precious time and the learned co –
counsel would also be taking 10 minutes. The Council seeks permission to address
the bench collectively as your Lordships. …… much obligied

Your lordship, counsel would like to seek permission to appraised the courts
regarding the facts of the case before dealing with the issues and argument
advanced…. Much obliged lordship…..

1. Chakrica is a sovereign democratic state with bicameral central and state

legislature and Mr George joined the central police service of chakrica on 1st
of july 1982 and after serving for more than 35 years he retired as director
general of bsf. After his retirement, he produced a book called Service to
the Nation. In which he has written about corruption and third degree torture
used on indigenous people by police of srinika and sate

2. After perusal of the book, the Central Government, following all legal
procedures permanently withheld Mr. George pension in accordance with
amended rule eight, sub Rule 3 a clause A.

3. Then after an NBT Committee created by SHRINIKA Legislative assembly

conducted an independent inquiry which concluded that Mr George. Was
just exercising his fundamental right under. Article 19 One clause a.
However, the central government Does not entertain NBT committees .
Conclusions and . Aggrieved by this decision the petitioner has filed a writ
petition in the present case.

the counsel now seeks permission to present the first two issues of the case  and
the rest issued will be dealt by learned co - counsel
I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT OF CHAKRICA UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is herein most humbly submitted that present petition has been filed by being
aggrieved by the action of the Respondent in transgressing upon the Fundamental
right of the Petitioner: Right to Pension, under the Constitution of Chakrica.

The first issue has been divided into three sub issues.

Counsel would like to give submission for the first sub issues which is -----

1. Right to receive the pension benefit had been the Fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31; and in arguendo, even if it has been
deleted nevertheless it had continued being a fundamental right under
other provision

The right to receive the pension after the retirement is the property and
had been the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) of
the Constitution (3Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar citied as 3 in page
number1)

The current position is that the employee could not be deprived of his pension
post the retirement stage, and it is the constitutional mandate under Article 300A
as he earned these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and
unblemished service. And the same has been affirmed by State of Jharkhand &
Ors vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr, cited as citation number 4 in page 2.

Though the Article 19(1)(f) had been deleted , but the right to receive the pension
receives the Fundamental Right guaranteed under the Constitution of Chakrica
under 21 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 39, 41 and 43 of the
Directive Principles of State Policy enumerated in Part -IV of the Constitution as
held in DS Nakara and Ors v. Union of India cited as citation number 7 in page 2 of
the argument advanced section

1.2. It is the fundamental right within the Article 16 of the Constitution and
Article 21

It is herein submitted that apart, being the right under the erstwhile
fundamental rights, it is also the Fundamental right under the Article 16
of the Constitution of the Chakrica within the phrase matters relating to
the employment
In the case of General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, cited
as citation number 8
it has been held by the Apex Court that the pension is the matter of the
right by holding the following words- “The other matters relating to
employment would inevitably be the provision as to the salary and
periodical increments therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as to
pension and as to the age of superannuation. These are all matters
relating to employment and they are, and must be deemed to be
included in the expression 'matters relating to employment' in Article
16(1).”

the employee when retires will neither be suitable nor competent

healthwise to render services and to lead a dignified life, the pension
has got to be paid as a matter of course and that the same is a
fundamental right traceable to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
apart from the same being a necessary service condition implied under
Article 16 of the Constitution. Same has been held in shri naini gopal vs
the union of india jugement of Bombay high court.

1.3. Pension is statutorily granted under Central Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1972 but the deprivation by the amendment caused the
violation of the Fundamental right as being arbitrary
It is herein submitted that as has been aforestated discussed the
pension falls within the ambit of the Right to life of the person
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and such right could
only be curtailed when provided by the procedure that has been
established as per law. What is important here is that even the
procedure that prescribes for the curtailment of the fundamental right
should not be arbitrary, non-reasonable. And the same has been held

In the case of C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. v. Chairman, Railway Board

& Ors, it has been held that-

Pension is a valuable right which a government servant earns. It is

neither charity nor bounty. Government servant acquires right to
pension and other retirement benefits on the date he retires from
service. Deprivation of such a valuable vested right after retirement is
manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary.

Thus, in the present case it could be said that the pension is the
fundamental right of the person, and on deprivation of the fundamental
right an action under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable, thus,
this writ petition is maintainable.

2nd issue WHETHER THE EXONERATION OF MR. GORG BY THE NBT

COMMITTEE FORMED BY THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW

It is herein submitted that the exoneration of the Mr. Gorg, the

Petitioner herein has been done correctly by the NBT Committee formed
by the State Legislature and there upon holding that he had exercised
his freedom of speech enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of the Chakrica.
The 2nd issue has been divided into two sub issues
 1. There should be reasonable balance between the Security of the
State and the Freedom of Speech and Expression

It is herein submitted such freedom of the speech has been curtailed by

the State citing the issue of the Security of the State. In the case of the
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras cited as citation number 13 in page 5
it has been held that –

We are, therefore, of opinion that unless a law restricting freedom of

speech and expression is directed solely against the undermining of the
security of the State or the overthrow of it, such law cannot fall within
the reservation under el. (2) of Article 19

Relevant to the book service to nation written by mr george a

judgement cited as citation number 15
Which held that The speech could only be called against the security of
the State if it speech advocates a change of the Government by violence
or contains a threat of such a change. It has been held by the Patanjali
Sastry, J. that speeches which tent to incite or encourage the
commission of the violent crimes, such as murder, are the matters which
could undermine the security of the State. But there is no such writing
mentioned in the book written by mr George which tends to do the
above stated.

2nd sub issue is Speaking against the corruption could not be ground to curtail
the freedom of speech and expression –

It is herein most humbly submitted that speaking on the issue of the corruption
could not per se be the ground for curtailment of the freedom of the speech and
expression, guaranteed under the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, under the
garb of the security of the state. Any restriction under clause 2 of the Article 19
should be reasonable, and it should not be arbitrary such that it takes away the
freedom to speak over the issue of the corruption as P.Nedumaran V. State of
Tamil Nadu, 1999 (1) LW (Crl.) cited as citation number 16 in page number 6

It is herein further submitted that the Petitioner herein has, in his book, expressed
the indignation against the corruption in the political system in the strong terms,
and that by itself in no stretch of imagination could be perceived as the
undermining of the security of the state

Open criticism of Government policies and operations is not a ground for

restricting expression. We must practice tolerance to the views of others.
Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself as held
in S.Rangarjan vs. P.Jagjivan Ram and others, cited as citation number 19

By considering the above mentioned it can be said that the writ petition before
supreme court of chakrica is maintainable and the exoneration of mr gorg by the
NBT committee formed by the state legislative assembly is in the accordance with
the law

It was a pleasure to plead before the honourable bench

If your lordship are satisfied with the submission , the counsel would like to invite
the learned co-counsel to deal with the rest of the issues .