1. Direct Entry Artificers claiming pension based on active service and deemed Fleet Reserve service — Dispute over qualifying service under Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 455
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6785 OF 2014
Decided On : 08-05-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Drafting into Indian Fleet Reserve is not automatic.
In absence of any assurance of enrolment or drafting into Fleet Reserve at the time of initial recruitment, appellants cannot invoke principle of promissory estoppel.
Apprentice Entry Artificers and Direct Entry Artificers stand on different footings. Cannot be equated.
Drafting into Indian Fleet Reserve is not automatic.
In absence of any assurance of enrolment or drafting into Fleet Reserve at the time of initial recruitment, appellants cannot invoke principle of promissory estoppel.
Apprentice Entry Artificers and Direct Entry Artificers stand on different footings. Cannot be equated.
Subject
NAVY - PENSION
Act Referred
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL ACT: S.30
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14
NAVY PENSION REGULATIONS: Reg.78, Reg.95
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14
NAVY PENSION REGULATIONS: Reg.78, Reg.95
Headnote
(a) Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 – Regulation 269 – Drafting into Indian Fleet Reserve – By a positive action – Not automatic – No presumption – An Artificer completing 10 years cannot presume to have been enrolled in Fleet Service automatically. (Para 22)
(b) Promissory estoppel – No assurance of enrolment or drafting into Fleet Reserve at the time of initial recruitment – Drafting into Fleet Reserve discontinued from 1976 – Principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. (Para 26)
(2017) 4 SCC 218; (1979) 2 SCC 409; (1986) 2 SCC 365 – Relied upon
(c) Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 – Regulation 269 – Apprentice Entry Artificers undergoing 4 years’ training – Thereafter advanced to rank of Artificer V commencing their initial engagement of 10 years’ active service – One year thereafter further advanced to rank of Artificer acting IVth Class – Training period of four years counted for purpose of pension – Direct Entry Artificers not having benefit of training – Two cases are different. (Para 29, 30)
(1997) 1 SCC 366 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 have rendered actual service of 10 years. For an Artificer to become entitled to pension, he is supposed to render minimum service of 15 years. The appellants claim that after their initial engagement period of 10 years as Artificers, they were placed in Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years and as per Regulations, 50% of the period of Reserve is to be counted for the purpose of pension. On that basis, it is claimed that 5 years period of Reserve would enure to their benefit and on adding this period of 5 years with actual service of 10 years, it is to be treated that they have rendered 15 years of service and are accordingly entitled to receive pensionary benefits. The respondents deny the placement of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 in Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years as claimed by the said appellants.
The appellants had filed O.A. before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi in which prayer to grant benefit was sought by them. The O.A. stands dismissed by the AFT. The appellants thereafter filed review petition seeking review of that judgment which was also dismissed by the AFT on March 25, 2014. Simultaneously, however, prayer for leave to appeal to this Court have been granted by the AFT
The orders passed in O.A. as well as in review petition have been assailed by the appellants by way of instant appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Appellants are not entitled to count 50% of the Fleet Reserve as they were never drafted into the said reserve.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Claim for pension via promissory estoppel regarding reserve liability — Plea for parity with Apprentice Entry Artificers under Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 12 )
3. Drafting into Fleet Reserve requires a positive act and recommendation; liability to serve does not constitute automatic enrollment or a vested right to pensionary benefits. (Para 9 , 11 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 26 )
4. Reserve liability does not ipso facto amount to drafting into Fleet Reserve; specific enrollment orders are necessary to reckon reserve periods for pension purposes. (Para 22 , 25 )
5. Appeal dismissed for reservist pension — Direction to consider grant of special pension in accordance with established precedent. (Para 28 , 31 )
6. Does liability to serve in the Fleet Reserve automatically entitle a sailor to count that period for pension?
No. Liability to serve is not automatic enrollment. Drafting into the Fleet Reserve requires a positive act, specific recommendation by the Commanding Officer, and a formal enrollment order. Without such an order, the period cannot be reckoned for pension. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 )
7. Can the principle of promissory estoppel be invoked to claim enrollment in the Fleet Reserve?
No. Since enrollment in the Fleet Reserve is not a right but depends on performance and recommendations, no guarantee or promise of enrollment can be made at the time of recruitment. (Para 24 , 26 )
8. Are Direct Entry Artificers entitled to parity with Apprentice Entry Artificers for pension purposes?
No. Apprentice Entry Artificers are entitled to pension because their four-year training period is counted as qualifying service. Direct Entry Artificers, who do not undergo this training, cannot claim the same benefit. (Para 29 , 30 )
9. Does the discontinuation of the Fleet Reserve policy affect the vested rights of sailors?
No. Because drafting into the Fleet Reserve was a prerogative of the employer and not a vested right of the sailor, the policy discontinuing the reserve does not prejudicially affect any accrued rights. (Para 26 )
JUDGMENT
A.K.SIKRI, J.
Appellant No. 1 is a registered Association of Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificers, whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are Ex Direct Entry Artificers of the Navy. Primarily, it is the cause of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 which is espoused by their Association as well i.e. appellant No. 1. These appellant Nos. 2 to 5 have rendered actual service of 10 years. For an Artificer to become entitled to pension, he is supposed to render minimum service of 15 years as per Regulation 78 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. The appellants claim that after their initial engagement period of 10 years as Artificers, they were placed in Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years and as per Regulations, 50% of the period of Reserve is to be counted for the purpose of pension. On that basis, it is claimed that 5 years period of Reserve would enure to their benefit and on adding this period of 5 years with actual service of 10 years, it is to be treated that they have rendered 15 years of service and are accordingly entitled to receive pensionary benefits. The respondents deny the placement of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 in Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years as claimed by the said appellants. Therefore, the moot question is as to whether the appellants, after rendering actual service of 10 years in the Navy, were drafted into Fleet Reserve or not.
2. The appellants had filed O.A. No. 8 of 2013 before the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AFT’), Regional Bench, Kochi in which prayer to grant benefit was sought by them. The AFT, however, has not accepted the case set up by the appellants. As a result, their O.A. stands dismissed by the AFT vide order dated January 22, 2014. The appellants thereafter filed review petition seeking review of that judgment which was also dismissed by the AFT on March 25, 2014. Simultaneously, however, prayer for leave to appeal to this Court have been granted by the AFT seeking authoritative pronouncement of this Court on the following questions of law formulated by the Tribunal:
“(1) Whether the applicants’ reserve liabilities imposed at the time of enrolment ipso facto amounted to their being drafted to Fleet Reserve without any specific order to draft them to the Reserve on completion of regular Naval service? If so, whether the period of such reserve liability as per the stipulated scheme was liable to be taken into account for computing the length of service of the applicants for pension purposes?
(2) Whether the applicants Nos. 2 to 5 were entitled to be treated at par with the Apprentice Entry Artificers for pension purposes only on the ground that both of them belong to the same homogenous class of Artificers?
3. Both these orders passed in O.A. as well as in review petition have been assailed by the appellants by way of instant appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
4. We now advert to the seminal facts which have led to the present litigation.
5. In the Indian Navy, the sailors are of two classes, the Artificers class and the non-Artificer class. Artificers are considered to be skilled sailors and they work on sophisticated technologies of warships. For the Artificer Class, there are two channels of Entry, known as Apprentice Entry Artificers and Direct Entry Artificers. The appellants joined Indian Navy as Direct Entry Artificers. At the relevant point of time (i.e. prior to July 3, 1976), the initial engagement of the Apprentice Entry Artificers as well as of the Direct Entry Artificers (appellants herein) was for 10 years active service. On the expiry of this term, they could be drafted into Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years. A person who is kept in Fleet Reserve can be recalled at any time, during the said period of 10 years, to serve in the Navy.
6. The Apprentice Entry Artificers (with education qualification of Matriculation) get 4 years training in Indian Navy during which period they get a special rate of pay (fixed stipend per mont
