Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
VETERAN GNR SIVANKUTTY NAIR. B. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 27523 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN, SHRI.VINOD K.C.
For the Respondents: SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA
The court established that a shortfall in qualifying service could be condoned under Regulation 125, thereby entitling the petitioner to invalid pension despite not meeting the full 10-year requirement.
Headnote:(A) Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 - Regulations 125 and 198 - Invalid pension eligibility - Petitioner suffered injuries while on duty, had completed 9 years and 268 days of service - Tribunal erred by not considering Regulation 125 for condonation of service shortfall - Court finds that had Regulation 125 been applied, petitioner would have qualified for invalid pension despite the shortfall of 97 days. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Jurisdiction - Delay in petitions and representations - Respondents argued delay and prior adjudication barred subsequent claims - Court noted that the Tribunal did not dismiss on delay but on the failure to consider alternative prayer for invalid pension based on service regulations. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a disability pension after being invalided out due to injuries suffered while on duty. His claims were repeatedly rejected citing service duration.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the writ petition based on the oversight of the Tribunal regarding Regulation 125, entitling the petitioner to invalid pension.
Issues: Is the service shortfall condonable for granting invalid pension under the relevant regulations?
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal failed to consider the applicable regulation allowing for the condonation of service deficiency, which would have granted eligibility for at least an invalid pension; thus the petition was allowed.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injury occurred while on duty, impacting pension eligibility. (Para 1) |
| 2. delay in claims raised concerns regarding entitlement. (Para 2) |
| 3. tribunal's oversight on service regulations affected the outcome. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. the court allowed for application of condonation of service. (Para 5) |
| 5. court's ruling granted entitlement to invalid pension. (Para 6) |
Amit Rawal, J.
The petitioner was recruited on 29.03.1976 in the Indian Army and went on leave from 05.04.1983 to 09.06.1983. When he went to school on a bicycle to collect the educational certificate of his brother, on return, fell from the bicycle while giving way to a speedy lorry and suffered multiple injuries. He was taken to the hospital and underwent a major surgery and thereafter served the Army, but was invalided out of service on 22.12.1985. By that time, had completed 9 years and 268 days at the time of the invalidation. He was eligible for medical pension, but prayer for disability pension was rejected in 1986 vide Annexure-A2. Jurisdiction of this Court was invoked in 2008 vide W.P(C) No.198 of 2008, but was dismissed on the ground of delay. Thereafter, a request was sent to the officer-in-charge of Records and other respondents for grant of disability pension, which was rejected vide Annexure-A5. A belated appeal filed was also rejected as also the second appeal. By Annexure-12 dated 12.10.1985, applicant received a communication of the Invaliding Medical Board proceedings under the RTI Act. The contention of the petitioner before the court was that there was an alternative prayer of invalid pension in case the applicant was not entitled to disability pension on account of the fact that the injury suffered was while on duty. Regulation 125 of the Pension Regulations for the Army , 1961 prescribes the condonation period of 6 months for the purpose of treating the qualifying service of 10 years.
There was a shortfall of only 97 days. However, the learned Tribunal considered Regulation 195 pertaining to the minimum qualifying service of 10 years, but ignored to refer Regulation 125 for the purpose of consideration of alternative prayer of invalid pension.
2. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that there was considerable delay and laches in filing the writ petition and repeated representation will not condone the delay. There is already an adjudication on the ground delay and the second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner by raking up a fresh cause of action is a gross abuse of process of the authorities as well as the court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and appraised the paper book.
4. Learned Tribunal has not dismissed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of delay but on the ground of not entertaining the claim of invalid pension on the ground that the applicant/the petitioner had not qualified 10 years of service. Regulation 198 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, extracted in the judgment under challenge, reads as under:
“Minimum Qualifying Service
198. The minimum period of qualifying service actually rendered and required for grant of invalid pension is 10 years. For less than 10 years actual qualifying service invalid gratuity shall be admissible.”
5. From the reasoning assigned, we feel that the Tribunal failed to refer to Regulation 125 of Army Regulations, 1961, which at that time provided the condonation of qualifying service by 6 months. Concededly the shortfall was only of 97 days. Had the Regulation 125 been taken into consideration, the petitioner would have been entitled to at least invalid pension instead of disability pension.
6. Regulation 125 is extracted hereinbelow:
“Condonation of deficiency in service for eligibility to service/reservist pension
125. Except in the case of:
(a) an individual who is discharged at his own request, or (b) an individual who is eligible for special pension or gratuity under Regulation
164, or (c) an individual
