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

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4428

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Umesh Gajankush, Member (J), Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Rajashree B. Karlekar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.32/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Swapna Gokhale
For the Respondents: Mr.P. Khosla

Non-pensionable prior military service not countable for pension under Railway Pension Rules 1993 for post-2004 NPS appointees; Rule 34 inapplicable without prior pension receipt; claim barred by 11-year delay and laches.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 - Rule 34 - New Pension Scheme - Counting of prior non-pensionable military service (Short Service Commission) for pensionary benefits, pay fixation and increments in railway service joined after 01.01.2004 - Applicant released from army service after 10 years without pension eligibility, offered to refund terminal gratuity - Claim rejected on ground of non-pensionable service and NPS applicability - Rule 34 requires counting of prior service only if pension and gratuity received from prior service; held inapplicable to post-2004 appointees under NPS where service length irrelevant for pension quantum - Prior state rules/cases distinguished as inapplicable to central railway rules. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 12)

(B) Limitation - Delay and laches - O.A. filed over 11 years after initial rejection (16.12.2010) challenging later communication (19.04.2018) - Prior O.A. withdrawn with liberty to file fresh - Held, initial rejection accrues cause of action; repeated representations do not extend limitation; no condonation application; not continuous wrong as pay/pension fixation denial not recurring monthly injury in NPS context. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
Ex-army Short Service Commission officer with 10 years non-pensionable service joined railway as teacher in 2007 post-NPS cut-off, sought counting of prior service for old pension scheme benefits citing Rule 34 and readiness to refund gratuity; claim rejected citing non-pensionable service and NPS governance; O.A. filed challenging 2018 rejection after 11-year delay from 2010 refusal.

Findings of Court:
No interference warranted; Rule 34 inapplicable to non-pensionable prior service and post-2004 NPS appointees; delay in filing not condonable; relied judgments distinguishable.

Issues: Whether prior non-pensionable military service countable under Rule 34 for NPS-covered railway employee; whether delay/laches bars challenge to service counting for pension.

Ratio Decidendi: Post-2004 railway appointees under NPS cannot claim old pension rules benefits including prior non-pensionable service counting; initial rejection triggers limitation, not extended by representations; doctrine of laches applies absent condonation.

Result: O.A. dismissed. No costs.

Table of Content
1. applicant's military service history and railway joining (Para 1 , 2)
2. nps applies post-2004; rule 34 inapplicable to non-pensionable service (Para 3 , 8)
3. count non-pensionable military service under rule 34 (Para 6 , 7)
4. oa barred by delay and laches (Para 9 , 10)
5. no continuing wrong; oa dismissed due to delay and nps applicability (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

ORDER

Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J) 

1.The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. That this Hon’ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to quash the order dated 18.04.2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by the respondent No.2 vide which the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground of earlier military service was not pensionable.

b. | That this Hon’ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant and her service to be governed by provisions of old pension scheme i.e. Railway Service (Pension) Rules 1993 and accordingly all the benefits as per old pension scheme may be given to her.

Cc. That this Hon’ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of total military service rendered by the applicant, for the purpose of pay fixation/annual increments and pension with all consequent benefits under Rule 34 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 as well as keeping in view law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Captain V.S. Narwal Vs. Chief Secretary of Government of Haryana, decided on 13.11.1995, Captain Indu Boken Vs. State of Haryana & Mian Jackson Se Ors. decided on 11.10.2012 and view laid down by Hon’ble MPranso = Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in Jawant Singh son of S/here Chajju Ram, Retd. Sub Post Master, Kathua V/s UOI & Ors., in OA/805/2009.

d. | That any such other and further order or orders be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case may require.

e. — That cost of the application be provided for.”

2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the O.A. are that the applicant joined Indian Army on March, 1994 as Women Short Service Commission Officer in the rank of 2" Lieutenant by Ministry of Defence. Initially as per prevalent rules Women Short Service Commission was for 5 years only. However, in case of applicant after completion of 5 years of her service she got her first extension of further 5 years vide — order No.05508/08/Extn/MS7B dated February, 1999. After successful completion of 10 years of extended tenure of Women Short Service Commission, the applicant had been released from Military Service as a Captain from Army Headquarters on 02.04.2004 without being eligible for pension under the Rules.

2.1. It is submitted that on 10.04.2004, the applicant had requested for grant of additional extension in the Army for a period of 4 years, however, vide letter dated 23.04.2004, the Military Secretary, Army Headquarters informed the applicant that she Milan Jackson S2S5Sss== Alphanso found unfit for additional extension by Selection Board (Spl) held on 21.04.2004. Further request was made for second time, however, finally on 31.05.2004, the Military Secretary informed the applicant about their inability for her further continuation in Army service.

2.2. It is further submitted that on 05.11.2005, the respondents through Railway Recruitment Board published an advertisement notice no.3/2005 for various posts including the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Physics). In the said advertisement the minimum criteria given for the said post was “M.Sc. in Physics, besides candidate must be possessing qualification like Med./B.Ed./Diploma or post-graduation of two years from the regional college of education of NCERT. All the education should be completed in English Medium. Priority will be given to experienced candidate.” In the said advertisement the examination fee was exempted for Ex-Serviceman. The applicant has participated in the said selec

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top