The judgment establishes that entitlement to pension for military personnel is determined by the minimum qualifying service period as specified in the relevant regulations, and there is no provision for pro-rata pension for personnel below officer rank.

Mukundakam Shrama, J.

( 1 ) THE prayer which is made in this petition is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner from the date of his discharge from military service with interest.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on October 15, 1963. During his service career spanning over 10 years and 258 days, the petitioner had earned more than four red-ink entries. As he had incurred more than four red-ink entries he was held to be a habitual offender and a show-cause notice was issued to him directing him to show cause why he should not be discharged from service. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. After receipt of the aforesaid reply, the same was considered and the petitioner was interviewed by the Commandant, School of Artillery. Thereafter, an order was passed by the respondent discharging the petitioner from service being unsuitable for military service in terms of the provisions of Army Rule 13-III (v) with effect from June 29, 1974. After the aforesaid discharge, the petitioner was also paid his terminal dues including service and death-cum- retirement gratuity. The petitioner was satisfied with the aforesaid payment and did not also claim for payment of any pension for long 25 years after the date of his discharge from service. After expiry of about 25 years, the petitioner raked up an issue that he is entitled to payment of pension which should be full pension or in any case, on pro-rata basis. In the rejoinder-affidavit the contention raised is that the discharge of the petitioner is illegal as the provisions of the army Order and Army Rules 13, 17 and 22 were not properly and validly complied with at the time of issuance of order of discharge and, therefore, the aforesaid discharge is illegal. However, no such prayer is made in the writ petition nor the petition was amended. The writ petition has been filed only with the prayer for grant of pension to the petitioner.

( 3 ) AS there is no prayer in the writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the order of discharge which was passed more than 25 years ago we are not inclined to enter into that controversy at all more so, at this highly belated stage. The only issue which is being considered and was argued at length in this petition is whether despite the aforesaid order of discharge the petitioner is entitled to grant of any pension in the light of his service rendered for 10 years and 258 days. Accordingly, we take notice of the said submission while disposing of this writ petition.

( 4 ) IT was contended by the Counsel appearing for the respondents that even the aforesaid prayer cannot be considered in this case due to inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in claiming such a relief. Being faced with the aforesaid position, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although there is delay and laches, the cause of action is a recurring one and if it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid benefit, he could even now be paid his pension and that the aforesaid claim would survive at least for a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition which cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. In support of the same, the Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Ex-Signalman Shri Bhagwan v. Union of india and Ors. , reported in 103 (2003) Delhi Law Times 269 (DB ).

( 5 ) WE have considered the aforesaid submissions of the Counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that there was definitely unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court for grant of payment of such pension immediately after the order of discharge was passed. There was long delay of more than 25 years in the process during which the petitioner kept complete silence over the issue. However, following the ratio of the decision of this Court in Shri Bhagwan s case (supra) we hold that if the pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document