SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Raj) 1279

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.R.Calla, Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.
Sultan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1251 of 1996 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3637 of 1995.
Decided On : 25-01-2002

For the Appellant:Mr. Shyam Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Bhanwar Bagri and Mr. Sanjay Pareek, Advocates.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Article 300A - Army Regulations, 1961, Rules 164 and 167, Regulations 316 and 318 of old Regulation - Issue in the case was whether the petitioner, who had served the establishment for more than 10 years, was entitled to special pension which he had claimed after a delay of 40 years - Claim allowed and directions issued to the respondent to grant him special pension according to Regulations No. 164 and 167 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and old Regulation No. 316 and 318 - cases of pension cover cases of family pension, service pension, special pension and similar other - question of delay is to be decided irrespective of nature of pension - it would be unjust to allow plea of delay in such a case where petitioner had duly made the claim to the authorities but his claim was rejected on a factually incorrect ground that military service was not the cause of his disability - further payment of gratuity cannot be a ground of rejecting his claim.

JUDGMENT

1. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.1996, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant in the matter relating to the pensionary benefits for the service rendered by him in the Army was rejected on the ground of laches alone.

2. The appellant came with the case that he was initially enrolled with the Rajputana Rifles of Army on 7.3.1942 and deployed in Eastern Sector during World War-II and was discharged on 20.9.1946 on account of demoblisation after the war was over. He was then re-enrolled in Rajputana Rifles on 31.7.1948 and deployed in Jammu & Kashmir and again discharged from service on 30.11.1954 on being rendered surplus to the Army Establishment. It appears that in the year 1986, the petitioner Trade a demand for special pension. On such demand being made, a reply dated 29.8.1986 was sent to him by the Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt. under the signature of the Record Officer for OIC Records and the contents of this letter dated 29.8.1986, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, are reproduced as under:

Tele: 393608
Records The Rajputana Rifles Delhi Cantt- 110010 29 Aug. 86

RNE/SP/9/3/46

No. 2834291 Ex. Rfn

Sultan Singh S/o Ganpat Singh

Vill & P.O.- Dumra,

Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
GRANT OF SERVICE PENSION

1. Refer to your letter dated 08 Jul. 86 received through Zila Sainik Board Jaipur (Raj.) letter No. F-31 (1)/R.S.: M/P/86/9841-42 dated 30 Jul. 86.

2. Your Service documents have been destroyed during 1980 being no longer required . As per our records you were enrolled on 31 Jul. 48 and discharged from service w.e.f. 30 Nov 54 being surplus to the establishments. You have also got 4 years and 279 days former service. Thus, you total service comes to 11 years and 37 days as under:

(a) Former Service - 4 years and 279 days.

(b) Service from 31 Jul 48 to 30 Nov 54 - 6 years 125 days Total Service 11 Years and 37 days.

3. The minimum service required to earn pension in the Army is 15 years. Since you have not completed the minimum pensionable service of 15 years in the Army. You are not eligible for grant of service pension. However you have been paid a sum of Rs. 316/- and 11 annas for the service rendered from 31 Jul. 48 to 30 Nov. 54 as service gratuity.
Sd/- (A.S. Dhillon) Capt. Record Officer For OIC Records

Copy to

The Secretary Zila Sainik Board - for information with reference to Jaipur (Raj.) their letter quoted above reference.

3. It appears that further correspondence transpired between the petitioner and the respondents and as a part of this correspondence a letter dated 18.3.1994 sent by the petitioner to the Officer-in-Charge, Records, of Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt. with reference to the Officer-in-Charge, Records of Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt., letters dated 2.11.1993 shows that the petitioner claimed to be entitled for grant of special pension in accordance with Regulations 164 to 167 of the pension Regulations of the Army Part I as he had been discharged being surplus due to the reduction in strength of Establishment of Army. A copy of this letter has been placed on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Rajputana Rifles sent another letters dated 16.7.1994 to the petitioner with reference to his letter dated 30.6.1994 in which it was held out that minimum of 15 years of service was necessary for service pension and whereas he had rendered the service of 6 years and 4 months only, he was not entitled to service pension. It was further mentioned in this letter that if the petitioner wants the old age pension or any other financial aid, he may approach concerned District Office of Sainik Beard and further that at the time of discharge, he had already been paid the service gratuity of a sum of Rs. 316/- and 11 annas in advance. The petitioner then sent notice, to the respondents through his advocate, dated 19.8.1994. This legal notice was replied by the Office of the Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad on 6.10.1994, ca




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top