2005 Supreme(Raj) 766
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble V.K. BALI, J.
Sajjan Kanwar (Smt.) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7739 of 2003
Decided On : March 21, 2005
R.S. Bhaduriya, for Petitioner Sanjay Pareek, for Respondents
Headnote:Pension Regulation for the Armed Forces in India, 1940, Regulation 316 – Entitlement for mustering out for pension and gratuity – Initially enrolled in Indian Army on 13.3.1931 – Discharged after 7 years 9 months 27 days service – Re-enrolled during second world war on 27.9.1939 – Discharged after 6 years 4 months 25 days – Prayed for musteroll pension – Declined in 1945 – Died in 1968 – Petitioner, widow demanded the benefit in 2002 – State claim – Not put in 10 years of service, essential for the purpose – Held – The services rendered during second world war has to be counted double for pensionary benefits – Services rendered comes to more than 10 years – In the matter of pension laches not come in the way of petitioner in getting full and complete relief – Directed to grant benefits within two months. (Paras 6 to 9)
In S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central Railway & Another (1), where in the matter of pension laches did not come in the way of the petitioner in getting the full and complete relief. (Para 7)
(2). The facts on which the relief as mentioned above is sought to rest reveal that the late husband of the petitioner was initially enrolled in the Indian Army on 13.3.1931 and was discharged from service after putting 7 years, 9 months and 27 days of service. Husband of the petitioner was was re-enrolled in the Army in 27th Bn. of the Rajputana Rif. on 27.9.1939 and was granted viceroy commission on 1.10.1942. He was discharged of his second engagement on 21.2.1946 after serving the Army for 6 years, 4 months and 25 days. It is significant to mention that for a second spell he was enrolled at the time of Second World War. He, however, died on 30.3.1968. During his life-time he prayed for pension/muster-roll pension which was declined on 13.12.1945 and representation against the order dated 13.12.1945 was dismissed on 12.3.1947 (Annex.R/2), the petitioner, as it appears, before approaching this court for the desired relief, issued a notice for demand of justice on 16.11.2002 (Annex.R/4) which was rejected vide impugned order dated 3.12.2002 (Annex.R/5).
(3). Pursuant to notice that was issued by this court, the respondents have entered defence and opposed the cause of the petitioner. It has inter-alia been pleaded that as per service record held with the respondent No. 3, he was initially enrolled as Rifleman in the Army (Rajputana Rifles) on 13.3.1931 with Army No. 12730 and was discharged from service on 9.1.1939 at his own request as found recorded in his service documents. He had rendered 7 years, 9 months and 27 days for the first spell of service. Admittedly, he was re-enrolled in Rajputana Riles on 27.9.1939 as Jamadar with Army No. IO 25651 and was released on 22.2.1946 on demobilization/reduction. He had rendered 6 years, 4 months and 25 days service. Admittedly, the total service works out to 14 years, 2 months and 22 days. He was paid service gratuity Rs. 654/- for six months only as recorded in his service documents. The case of husband of the petitioner was processed during 1945 by the appropriate authority but was rejected by GHQ (I) on the ground that individual was reemployed on the same footing as other war time engagement soldiers (viz.-for the duration of war and 12 months thereafter and did not complete the conditions of service as a Viceroy Commissioned Officer. His case was treated as closed as is clear from the letters dated 13.12.1945 and 12.3.1947 (Annex.R/1 and Annex.R/2 respectively). He did not stake his claim from any type of pension/relief, thereafter till he died on 30.3.1968 and for the first time a legal notice was served on 16.11.2002. Same was duly replied vide letter dated 3.12.2002.
(4). During the course of arguments the learned counsel appearing for Union of India has raised two fold contentions to defend the cause of the petitioner. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner is stale and the petition is time barred having been filed after number of years even from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner. It deserves to be dismissed on laches. It is then contended that the husband of the petitioner had not put in 10 years of service which was essential for him to get his muster-roll pension.
(5). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. The entitlement of individual for mustering out pension and gratuity is governed by Regulation 316 of the Pension Regulations for the Armed Forces in India, 1940 (Hereinafter to be referred in short as `the Regulatio