Delhi High Court
Ex. Maj. A. Sivakumaran vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 March, 2007
Author: T Thakur
Bench: T Thakur, S Aggarwal
ORDER
T.S. Thakur, J.
1. The petitioner was working as a commissioned officer in the Indian Army. He took voluntary retirement on 29th December, 1992 after having rendered 17 years of service. He has now filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay pro-rata pension to him with effect from the date of his retirement.
2. Appearing for the petitioner Major Ramesh argued that the petitioner was entitled to claim pro-rata pension on the basis of the recommendations made by the 4th Pay Commission. He submitted that the report of the pay commission continued the existing system of pension payable upon completion of 10 years of service. Since the recommendations had been accepted by the Government of India, the respondents have no justification for refusing the said relief to the petitioner.
3. There is, in our opinion, no merit in the contention urged by Major Ramesh. The entitlement of the Commissioned, Junior Commissioned and Non-Commissioned officers serving in the Army for payment of pension is regulated by the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961. Regulation 25 of the said regulations specifically provides that the minimum period of qualifying service actually required and rendered for earning retiring pension shall be 20 years. The provision may be gainfully extracted at this stage:
25(a) The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning a retiring pension shall be 20 years (15 years in the case of late entrants.)
(b) The minimum period of qualify in service actually rendered and required to earn retiring gratuity shall be 10 years.
[The retiring gratuity shall be admissible only when one has not rendered the minimum qualifying service for earning retiring pension indicated in (1) above.]
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not a late entrant within the meaning of that expression as used in Clause (a) of Regulation 25 (Supra). That being so, he was required to have a minimum qualifying service of 20 years before he could claim retiring pension. That requirement, the petitioner did not admittedly, satisfy. There is in that view no question of sanctioning to the petitioner pension not otherwise admissible to him under the Rules that regulate his service conditions. Reliance placed by the petitioner upon recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission is wholly misplaced. The said recommendations, insofar as the same relate to pension were in the following words:
(i) Existing system of paying lumpsum gratuity for service below 10 years and monthly pension for qualifying service of 10 years and more may continue.
5. It is true that the above recommendations have been accepted by the Government but the same makes little difference insofar as the entitlement of the petitioner is concerned. That is because the above recommendations applies only to cases where 10 years of qualifying service entitled the employee to pension. In the case of army personnel especially commissioned officers serving in the Army, the qualifying service period is not 10 years but 20 years as is evident from Regulation 25 extracted above. There is no question of taking any non-existent system to be in existence qua such army officers. The petitioner is not, in view of what is stated above, entitled to the relief prayed for him in this writ petition. The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.
