IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.26105 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.29381 and 29384 of 2025

1.Union of India Rep. by the Secretary Government of India Ministry of Defence, Room No.227 B Wing Sena Bhawan New Delhi 110 011

2.The Chief of Army Staff Army Head Quarters Integrated Head Quarters DHQ Post South Block New Delhi 110 011

3.The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions)

Draupathi Ghat, Allahabad

4.The Officer-in-Charge The Madras Regiment Wellington, The Nilgiris Tamil Nadu Petitioners Vs Ex Sep B Kannan Service No 2584974W S/o Late Belli Gounder Mel Kundah Dodda Combai Post 643219 Tamil Nadu Respondent PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of O.A.No 131 of 2022 with MA 201 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 passed by Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai (Regional Bench) thereby quashing and setting, aside the impugned order. For Petitioners: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Addl. Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy Sr. Panel Counsel For Respondent: Mr.L.Rajaiah for Mr.Soloman Pandian ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The short ground to challenge the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal is that the Tribunal ignoring the mandate of the provisions as contained in Regulation 125 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (for short, “Regulations”) has directed condonation of shortfall in the qualifying period of service, which could earn pension.

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India referred to the provisions contained in Regulation 125 to submit that exercise of discretion to condone or not to condone, as conferred under the aforesaid Regulations, is available excluding certain cases of exceptional nature as specified in the Regulations itself. One of them is that if a person is discharged on his own request, he could not claim any condonation by invoking the discretion under Regulation 125. The Tribunal completely ignored that the present was a case of discharge on own request. Therefore, the condonation clause itself was not applicable. The order, it is contended, is therefore in excess of jurisdiction and warrants interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order of the Tribunal proceeds on such similar orders passed by the Tribunal in many cases and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent is not entitled to those benefits. According to him, such kind of orders have been passed even by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai, in many cases and, if the order is interfered with, the respondent would be excluded from the benefit, which has been granted in many such similarly situated cases. 5. Though learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are many decisions and orders, none of them, upon perusal, are found to be in support of his contention.

6. To be precise and in order to conclude, we need to refer to Regulation 125, which reads thus:

“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.

(c) an individual who is invalided with less than 15 years service, deficiency in service for eligibility to service pension or reservist pension or gratuity in lieu may be condoned by a competent authority upto six months in each case.”

7. It is vividly clear that those who have been discharged on their own request are not entitled to seek invocation of the discretion of the authority to condone the deficiency in pensionable period of service. In the present case, the respondent was discharged way back in the year 1996 on his own reques