Singh Ghugtyal Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 310 (3 November 1987)
B.C. (J) RAY, B.C. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)
1988 AIR 101 1988 SCR (1) 769 1987 SCC Supl. 656 JT 1987 (4) 246 1987 SCALE
Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part 1): Regulations Nos. 132 & 126:
Entitlement to pension-Havaldar rendering less than qualifying service-Held not
entitled to pension.
No. 132 of Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 (Part I) prescribes minimum
qualifying colour service of fifteen years for earning service pension.
Regulation No. 126 provides for counting of former service.
petitioner's representation for pension was rejected on the ground that he had
not been in the Army service for a period of 15 years as required under the
Army Pension Rules.
the writ petition the petitioner claimed that he had served in the Army from
November 1939 to August 1948, when he was released in the rank of Havaldar,
that he was again recalled and served in the Army Supply Corps (MT) from July
1948 to July 1953 in the rank of Havaldar, when he was again recalled by the
Kumaon Regiment and served in the Lok Sahayak Sena from July 1953 to July 1956
in the rank of Havaldar. He further stated that service rendered by him in the
LSS (third spell) should be treated as services in the army and he having
served for more than 15 years m the army was entitled to pension.
claim that he was in the army service for over 19 years, was contested by the
respondents, who stated that the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on
November 24, 1940 and discharged from service with effect from October 26,
1946, that he was subsequently re-enrolled in ASC (MT) with Army on March 8,
1948 and discharged from there on May 20, 1952, and that he has re-enrolled
with the Kumaon Regiment on March 2, 1955 for Lok Sahayak Sena and discharged
from there on September 2, 1957. It was further stated that the service
rendered by him in LSS was not countable towards pension and that his service
in the first two spells was 10 years and 54 days only.
petitioner could not produce relevant documents in support of his statement.
Dismissing the writ petition, ^
The petitioner has not rendered 15 years of army service to be able to get the
benefit of army pension as required under the army rules. [772F] The statements
of the petitioner regarding the periods of service rendered by him in the first
and the second spell are inconsistent with his record of service produced by
the respondents at the hearing. [772D-E] His service in the National Volunteer
Force (LSS) cannot be treated as army service countable towards pension.
Writ Petition No. 1702 of 1986.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India) K.M.M. Khan Amicus Curiae for the
Sharma, Mrs. Subhadra and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondents.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.C. RAY, J. The petitioner who was a
Havaldar in the Army (No. 4 142276) has moved this writ petition praying for an
order directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to give pensionary benefit to the
petitioner as he has served about 19 years in the army as a Havaldar. The
petitioner has stated that in the first spell he has served in Kumaon Regiment
from November, 1939 to August, 1947 during the second world war. He was
released from the army service in August, 1947 in the rank of Havaldar (No.
16235). The petitioner was again recalled during Kashmir operations, in the
Kumaon Regiment and he served in the Army Supply Corps (MT) from July, 1948 to
July, 1953 in the rank of Havaldar (DUR-No. 6556074). The petitioner further
stated that he was recalled from Army Supply Corps (MT) by Kumaon Regiment and
transferred to impart training in the Lok Sahayak Sena of K.R.C. Platoon No. 28
where he served from July, 1953 to July, 1956 in the rank of Havaldar. As his
job was to impart military training to Lok Sahayak Sena which is like NCC, he
retained a regular army No. 4142276. The petitioner stated that in an alleged
incident of storing illicit arms in his house, there was a police raid and all
his papers 771 were taken away by the police and as such he had no papers left
with him to prove his service in the regular army except a statement of
accounts QE 11/56, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure P-2. It has
been stated that the petitioner was intimated by a letter dated 27.9.1983
issued by the District Sanik Welfare and Resettlement office, Almora in reply
to his representation for pension that he has not been in the army service for
a period of 15 years as required, to be entitled to get pension according to
Army Pension Rules. His claim for army pension was, therefore, rejected: This
letter has been annexed as annexure P-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner
has stated in the writ petition that his service rendered in the LSS (third
spell) should be treated as service in the army and he having served for more
than 15 years in the army is entitled to pension.
affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents sworn by
Capt. P.E. Joseph. In para 1 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the
petitioner was originally enrolled with the Kumaon Regiment on 24th November,
1940 and discharged from service with effect from 26th October, 1946. He was
subsequently re-enrolled in ASC (MT) with Army No. 6556074 on 8th March, 1948
and discharged from there on 20th May, 1952. It has been further stated that in
the third spell of service he was re-enrolled with the Kumaon Regiment on 2nd
March, 1955 for Lok Sahayak Sena and allotted Army No. 4142276. He was
discharged from there on 2nd September, 1957. It has been further stated in
para 3 of the said affidavit that the claim of the petitioner that he was in
army service for over 19 years was not based on facts. It has been further
stated that his service in the first two spells is 10 years and 54 days only
and even if his service with 29 LSS is counted towards qualifying service his
total service would be less than 15 years. So he will not be entitled to
pension as per the extent army rules. The petitioner on the other hand was
unable to produce relevant documents in support of his statement regarding the
period of his service in the army rendered both in the first and second spell
of service. It appears from a letter dated 21st October, 1982 issued by the
Lieutenant, Sahayak Abhilekh Adhikari, Asstt. Record officer for OIC Records
that the service rendered by the petitioner in LSS cannot be counted towards
pension as the members of that unit are not treated as army personnel. This
letter has been annexed as annexure 'D' to the counter-affidavit. It has been
further stated in the affidavit that since the individual has not served in the
army as an incumbent for more than 15 years, he is not entitled to any pension
as contemplated under the army rules.
A supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents verified by 2nd
Lieutenant Jagdish Singh, Records Kumaon Regiment, Ranikhet has been filed
wherein it has been stated in para 9 that the petitioner having not completed
the required 15 years of service, was not entitled to pension as per prevalent
rules. It also appears from the letter dated 3rd February, 1987 issued under
the signature of Major, Senior Record officer for officer-in-Charge addressed
to the organisation Directorate, Adjutant General's Branch, Army Headquarters
that since the petitioner had not completed 15 years pensionable service in
both the spells, he was not entitled to service pension as per the existing
orders. It has been further stated therein that the petitioner's service in 28
National Volunteer Force (LSS) training team was not countable towards pension
for which necessary clarification had already been given by the CDA(P),
Allahabad vide letter dated 21st October, 1982.
respondents at the time of hearing produced the relevant records wherefrom it
appears that the petitioner has not completed 15 years of army service as his
service in the LSS can not be treated as army service. It is also evident that
the statements of the petitioner regarding the periods of service rendered by
him in the first and the second spell are inconsistent with his record of
service as mentioned in the letter dated February 3, 1987, annexed as annexure
'B' to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents
as well as from the letter issued under the signatures of Sahayak Abhilekh
officer for OIC Records dated October 16, 1981, annexed as annexure P-4 to the
writ petition The army regulation Nos. 126 and 132 were also placed before us
in this connection. We are constrained to hold that the petitioner has not
rendered 15 years of army service to be able to get the benefit of army pension
as required under the army rules. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. There
will however. be no order as to costs.
.S. Petition dismissed.