The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Pension Regulations for the Army do not provide for grant of pro-rata pension to those who have not rendered the qualifying years of service, and the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission did not amend the regulations to reduce the qualifying period or provide for pro-rata pension.

1. The short question that falls for consideration in all these writ petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to claim pension on a pro-rata basis even when they do not qualify for grant of service pension under the Rules regulating their service conditions. The question is no longer res integra in the light of four division bench decisions rendered by this Court holding that the Pension Regulations for the Army do not envisage grant of pro-rata pension to those who have not rendered qualifying years of service. Before we refer to the said decisions we may extract Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for the Army for ready reference: “132. The Minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years.”

2. A plain reading of the above provision would leave no manner of doubt that pension rules applicable to those serving in the Indian Army and governed by the aforementioned Regulations can claim service pension as a matter of right only if they have rendered qualifying service of 15 years in that Force. Neither Regulation 132 extracted above nor any other provisions contained in the Regulations for the Army envisage or provide for grant of pro-rata pension to those who have not rendered the qualifying years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioners were also unable to refer to us any such provision in support of their contention that pro-rata pension was legally admissible to the petitioners or any one of them. That appears to be the position even according to the decisions of this Court to which we may be briefly referred at the stage. In Mahinder Singh(Ex-Sep.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2001 VI AD (Delhi) 774 Dr.Mukandakam Sharma,J, as his lordship then was, had an occasion to examine whether the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 envisage grant of pro-rata pension. Repelling the contention that pro-rata pension could be granted to the petitioner by reference to Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules and de hors the pension regulations applicable to the Army, the Court observed: “5. The decisions on which the counsel appearing for the petitioners relied during the course of his arguments based on interpretation of the provisions of rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules. Although the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is also governed by the provisions of the said rules, I am unable to accept the said contention for the fact that there is a specific provision in the Pension Regulations applicable to the Army personnel that the minimum service which qualifies for service pension would be 15 years in the case of Army personnel. The petitioner is governed by the said provisions of para 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, Part-I, and therefore, the said provision is also applicable in his case. The pension of the Army personnel is required to be paid as per Pension Regulations for the Army for making payment of any pro rata pension for the Army personnel. Reliance on the decisions interpreting the provisions of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules is misplaced, for the said provision cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case”

.3. A similar issue arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India & Anr. 116 (2005) DLT 486 (DB). Relying upon the decision in Mahinder Singhs case (supra) the Court declared that the Pension Regulations for the Army do not provide for grant of pro-rata pension to those who do not have qualifying service to their credit. The Court observed:

.“8. We have gone through the Pension Regulations for the Army. In the said regulation we could not find any provision which provides for grant of pro-rata pension. Since the petitioner is governed by the Pension Regulation for the Army and not by the CS (Pension) Rules, reliance of the petitioner on the CCS (Pension) Rules in support of his contention is misplaced. Reliance of the pe