The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Navy Act and Regulations clearly distinguish between discharge, dismissal, retirement, and voluntary resignation. The court emphasized that the concept of voluntary retirement was not applicable to the petitioners' situation, and they were entitled to the benefits of Regulation 85 to earn rank pension.

JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.:---Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. These petitions involve common question of law and fact. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Whether Regulation 85 of Pension Regulations (Navy) 1964, providing condonation upto 3 months service for Sailors to earn rank pension except in case of voluntary retirement, would contemplate a situation where upon expiry of initial engagement, the concerned Sailor does not agree or express his unwillingness for further re-engagement is the issue in these petitions. Regulation 85 reads thus:--

"85. Condonation of deficiency of service in a particular rank.—A Competent Authority may, depending on the circumstances of the case, condone a deficiency of service in a particular rank not exceeding three months, except on voluntary retirement."

4. Petitioners in these petitions joined Indian Navy as Sailors. Upon requisite qualifications being attained, petitioners were engaged in service. Petitioner in Writ Petition 282 of 2003 joined service on 15th July, 1985. He was promoted to rank of Petty Officer. On 5/6th May, 2001, he was awarded deprivation of 3rd Good Conduct Badge. It appears that he had made an application for redressal on 14th December, 2001. On 28th February, 2001 Head Quarters, WNC, was of the view that his application for redressal deserved to be considered favourably and forwarded the same to respondent No. 3. Thereupon, respondent No. 3 informed Head quarters that there is no provision to review a summary punishment. It appears that petitioner once again made representation to respondent No. 3 so that he could be promoted to the rank of Chief Petty Officer. However, his application was returned back on 28th August, 2002 by respondent No. 3. Petitioner approached this Court to challenge these proceedings. This Court by an order dated 18th February, 2003 directed that petitioners representation be considered by the authorities under the Navy Act. The Competent Authority was directed to pass, as expeditiously as possible, an order thereon and preferably within a period of eight weeks from said order of this Court.

5. Pursuant to these directions, representation of petitioner was considered. It appears that representation raised two fold grievances; one pertaining to the promotion as Chief Petty Officer and secondly condoning deficiency in service with a view to enable petitioner to earn pension. In so far as the date of promotion is concerned, the finding rendered by Competent Authority is that petitioner has been promoted on the correct date.

6. In so far as second grievance is concerned, it was observed that on 23rd April, 1999, petitioner forwarded a lesser period certificate in which he had clearly stated that he "opts to sign" for lesser period due to personal reasons. According to Competent Authority this was given in response to expiry of engagement serial in which an offer of re-engagement is made. In the opinion of the authorities by giving lesser period certificate, petitioner opted for voluntary retirement. In the further view of the authority the certificate was given at the time of initial engagement period. Petitioner had applied for N.O.C. in which unwillingness for further service has been re-confirmed. It is the view of the Competent Authority that petitioner did not revoke his unwillingness for further service. In the view of the authority three opportunities to revoke unwillingness (Voluntary Retirement) having not been availed of, it is not possible to condone the period required for earning rank pension. The main conclusion of the authority is that since petitioner had voluntarily retired, the deficiency in service cannot be condoned. Secondly, it is ordered that petitioner is not eligible for condonation of deficiency so as to enable him to earn rank pension.

7. After amendments, petitioner in W.P. 284 of 2003 has confined his prayer only for rank pensio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document