ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR

28.

OA No 242/2022 No-10545174M Hav Chet Ram, S/o Shri Babu Lal Saini, R/o Village-Chota Bag, Post-Khetri Nagar, Teh-Khetri, District-Jhunjhunu (Raj) …. Applicant Versus

1. The Union of India, through the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi

2. PCDA (Pension), Allahabad (UP)

3. The OIC Records, JAKRIF, PIN-908774, C/o 56 APO

4. The PAO (OR), JAK RIF, PIN-908774, C/o 56 APO …. Respondents For Applicant : Mr Yogendra Singh/Sunil Kumar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr Pyare Lal, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

O R D E R

03.02.2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for stepping up of basic pay at par with his junior and thereafter release all retiral benefits accordingly along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Territorial Army on 19.10.2001 and on completion of terms of engagement, he was Discharged from Service on 31.10.2021 after rendering more than 20 years of service with 18 years and 233 days of embodied service. The Applicant submits that while in service, he was getting less Basic Pay than his junior and, therefore, his case for stepping up of Pay at par with his junior was taken up by his unit vide letter dt 06.08.2020, but his Basic Pay was not stepped up. The Applicant continued to get less Basic Pay than his junior his discharge which resulted in fixation of less Basic Pension than his junior. After discharge from Service, the Applicant again made representation through Zila Sainik Kalyan Karyalaya, Chirawa for stepping up of his Pension, but to no avail. The Applicant has placed reliance on AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 10.12.2014 in OA No 113/2014 in the case of Sub Chittar Singh Vs UOI & Ors and connected matters and contended that he is eligible for stepping up of his pay/pension at par with his junior.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that Ex Hav Kewal Singh, junior of the Applicant was getting more basic pay because he had rendered more embodied service of 19 years, 7 months and 18 days as against the Applicant’s embodied service of 18 years, 7 months and 24 days. Moreover, Ex Hav Kewal Singh was granted MACP-III on having completed eight service of continuous service in the rank of Havildar and was granted an additional increment. Whereas, the Applicant was not granted MACP-III benefit, being disembodied for 139 days of service and, thus, could not complete 8 years of continuous service in the rank of Havildar before his discharge from Service. Therefore, by virtue of more embodied service and additional increment due to MACP-III benefits, his junior, Ex Hav Kewal Singh is getting more basic pay. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Leaned Counsel for the Applicant prayed for remanding back the case to respondents for re-consideration in the light of AFT (PB), New Delhi judgment in the case of Chittar Singh (Supra). Learned Counsel for the Respondents raised no objection, if the case is remanded back to the Respondents for reconsideration.

5. We have heard Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. Perusal of records reveals that the embodied service of the Applicant is less than his junior, Ex Hav Kewal Singh. Since the Applicant had not rendered 8 years of continuous service before being discharged from service on completion of terms of engagement, therefore, he was not granted benefit of MACP-III, whereas his junior had rendered 8 years of continuous service in the rank of Havildar, he was granted benefit of MACP-III. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that h