Union Of India And Others v. Ex Nk Gopal Singh No13750269 And Another
[1]
!"
#$ #
! %!& !"
'#$# ( UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....PETITIONERS )** EX. NK GOPAL SINGH & ANR.
.....RESPONDENTS +"
,- +# *
**
.
,- +*# *
*
*+ Argued by: Mr. Maheshinder Singh Sidhu, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners/UOI.
**** **
.
/ # 1.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners herein0 Union of India, prays for the setting aside of the order dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P01), as passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned, wherebys the claim of respondent No.1 for the grant of service element of the disability pension for the service rendered by him in Defence Security Corps (DSC) has been allowed, by condoning the shortfall of 303 days from the requisite 15 years of qualifying service for earning service pension in the DSC. 0&1%02 0&34 %!
2.
Respondent No.1 was enrolled in the Indian Army on 29.10.1984 and after 22 years, 03 days, was discharged therefrom on 31.10.2006. Respondent No.1 was granted retiring pension, as admissible to him as per the Pension Regulations. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was re0enrolled into Defence Security Corps (DSC
[2] service) on 29.10.2007. According to the prevalent policy, upon attaining the age of superannuation, respondent No.1 was discharged from service in the DSC on 31.12.2021 after rendering a service of 14 years, 02 months, and 03 days, which was short by 09 months and 27 days, so as to make the soldier enabled to complete the qualifying term of 15 years, for the purpose of grant of service pension, thus for the second service rendered by him in the DSC.
3.
Respondent No.1 was denied service pension by the competent authority for his not completing the requisite qualifying period for earning service pension in the DSC. 4.
Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed O.A., before the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned, wherebys he cast a challenge to the afore said rejection order. The said O.A., became allowed vide order dated 04.05.2023. The operative part of the said order is extracted hereinafter:0 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
! "
$%
& 5.
Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order as passed upon the O.A. (supra), by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned, the petitioner0Union of India has filed there against the instant writ petition before this Court.
*%567
7 !
19 20 ! & %!
2
19 :1717 !
6.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the
[3] learned Tribunal has failed to consider that in terms of Regulation No.125 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and Regulation No.44 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, thus only the Competent Authority was empowered to condone the deficiency in the rendition of qualifying service, thus by the soldier for his becoming entitled to seek the endowment of pension to him. The said Regulations are extracted hereinafter.
(PENSION REGULATIONS FOR ARMY, 1961) '() *+
"
#
,
'-.
')
#
+ & (PENSION REGULATIONS FOR ARMY, 2008) .. /
#
0
'(
+
"
')
#
,
& 4 Moreover, the Ministry of Defence vide Policy letter No.14 (02)/2011/D/(Pen/Pol) dated 20.06.2017, inserted clause (iv) in the Regulation No. 44 of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 2008. The relevant part whereof, is extracted hereinafter.
[4] 8.
A perusal of the afore amendment would make it clear that relief qua condonation of deficiency in rendition of the apposite qualifying service, is to be accorded on merit, so as to ensure that an army personnel is eligible for at least one service pension.
9.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits, that the judgment of the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, rendered in case titled as ! " # $% was not correct rather was contrary to law and facts, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placed on the said judgment. The relevant paragraphs, as occur in the verdict (supra) are extracted hereinafter.
(
/
"
6
(.7.(7'$
1
8
9:
! ,
;
<9 '.7$(77'
= ..
= ,
; <9
(77-(7'4>
> :
> 9 ?
6 9 @
A B A C -7 (7'D 74''(7'D
5/
> : 5/
;
<9
> ++++ ++++
[5] .$
# #!
E 6
!
1
C
"
# 9
: '.
:
:
/#
: =
GH# : , #
9
:
GH# G : 9 = ?# I G < < ,
#
6 9 </
& ‟ '
( )
* ) )
:
##
/#
"
"
&
( ( 5 /#
(774 / #
'.7$(77'
= '( =
#
+
, -. -/ 0 /1 -/ -/2
=
#
:
:
[6] # /#
6 9 H
C
= .4 #
!8 !&
% 1# 10.
Since the expostulations made in paragraph No. 12 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as !7 !
! 70 0!
! 19
) *% !
*7!49 0 , reported in -/32 ,-,, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, overcomes the disabling effects, if any, of supra exception No.(iv), as became inserted vide policy/letter dated 20.06.2017, thus, intended to work as an obstacle rather against the soldier claiming relief of condonation in the requisite shortfall of service. '(
"
+
'( # +
?
G : /#
#
# # /# G
(. J
'K$) '.
(77'
+
# / /#
H
11.
Therefore, the judicial verdict (supra), does render negated the supra argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners, that the empowerment to condone the requisite shortfall, becomes solitarily vested in the Competent Authority, especially when the hereinabove underlined paragraphs, as occur in the verdict made in *% !
*7!49 0 ,
&0 , alluded to in the verdict made in Shama Kaur's case, do
[7] invest jurisdiction in the Writ Court, to through judicial intervention, thus make the espoused condonation.
12.
Consequently, the cumulative effect of the authoritative judicial pronouncement as carried in the above extracted paragraph, made in ( ) thus completely countervails both the supra arguments raised before this Court, by the counsel for the petitioners, thus for denying to the respondent, the benefit of the service pension for his serving in the DSC, merely on the ground that he has not completed the qualifying period of service, besides on the further flimsy ground, that only the competent authority is authorized to condone the said shortfall.
13.
Nonetheless, in terms of the declaration made in the hereinabove underlined para, as carried in the verdict (supra), the claims of dual family pension in addition to the first family pension, if required, would be restricted from 24.09.2012, as envisaged by the Ministry of Defence Letter dated 17.01.2013.
7!02
% 1# 14.
In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and with observations above, the same is dismissed. 15.
The impugned order, as passed by the learned Tribunal concerned, is maintained and affirmed.
16.
Disposed of alongwith all pending application(s), if any.
;**
.< 07.01.2025 ;*
*+< mahima
Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No