Delhi High Court
Ex. Nk Satbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 May, 2012
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 28.05.2012
+ W.P.(C) No.3294/2012
Ex. NK Satbir Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Hooda.
For respondents : Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd May, 2010
passed by Principal Bench, Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A
No.102/2010 titled as Ex.Nk Satbir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
dismissing his petition seeking service pension.
2. The Tribunal while dismissing the original application of the
petitioner seeking service pension had noticed that the petitioner was
sentenced for life imprisonment by Session Court in a case regarding
the murder of his cousin under Sections 302, 148, 145, 325 & 506 of
Indian Penal Code which sentence was reduced to 7 years in appeal by
Punjab & Haryana High Court on 20th July, 1995.
3. The petitioner was also granted casual leave with effect from 2nd
August, 1992 till 11th August, 1992 but he had absented after 11th
August, 1992 and had reported back on 9th September, 1992. The
petitioner was discharged from service with effect from 17th April, 1996.
4. The Tribunal has also noted that though the petitioner alleged
that he had put in 16 years 4 months and 13 days of service and since
for service pension, a JCO is liable to render 15 years of service,
therefore, he is entitled for service pension. However, considering the
period of absence of the petitioner which was deducted from his alleged
service of 16 years 4 months and 13 days, the petitioner does not have
qualifying service period for pension.
5. The petitioner had challenged this fact that he did not have
minimum qualifying service period of pension by filing a writ petition,
being W.P(C) No.1328/2002, where the High Court found that the
petitioner had put in 14 years and 98 days of service and, therefore, by
order dated 11th December, 2008 the matter was remitted back.
6. After considering the case of the petitioner by the order dated 12th
March, 2009, the petitioner was not granted pension and it was held
that the petitioner was discharged from service in terms of Para 423 of
Army Regulation, 1987 read with Para 13(3) item III (V) of Army Rules,
1954 being an undesirable soldier.
7. The Tribunal has dismissed the original application on the
ground that good conduct is an implied condition for grant of service
pension and since the petitioner was guilty of murder and was
sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment, therefore, his conduct was
immoral and the respondents were within their rights to deny service
pension to the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Hooda is unable to
show any rules and regulations or any precedent on the basis of which
it can be held that though the petitioner was found guilty of charge of
murder and he was also sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment, still his
conduct will be deemed to be good so as to entitle him for service
pension. No ground has been made out by the petitioner which will
entitle him for service pension in the facts and circumstances of this
case.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to disclose
any cogent reason for undue delay in filing the present writ petition as
original application of the petitioner being O.A No.102/2010 was
dismissed by order dated 3rd May, 2010 and the present writ petition
has been filed by the petitioner on 24th May, 2012 almost after two
years. No cogent ground rather no ground has even been disclosed
condoning the delay in filing the writ petition.
10. It has been held in a number of cases by the Supreme Court as
also this Court that stale claims should not be entertained by the
Courts and that the failure to make out grounds to condone the delay in
seeking remedy in law is sufficient in itself to oust the petitioner. In this
connection, reference can be made to the following precedents:
(i) Rajalakshmiah v. State of Mysore AIR 1967 SC 993
(ii) J.N. Maltiar v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0382/1973
(iii) C.B.S.E. v. B.R. Uppal and Ors. MANU/DE/8142/2006
(iv) Savitri Sahni v. Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi and Ors.
MANU/DE/8673/2006
11. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 274 the Supreme
Court had held at page 277 in paras 8 as under:
"8. ... The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated
resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to
cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its
train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised
after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting
not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on
third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction
is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of
third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor
which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether
or not to exercise such jurisdiction."
12. In the totality of facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal dismissing the original
application of the petitioner nor any illegality, irregularity or any
perversity has been made out by the petitioner so as to require any
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
MAY 28, 2012
„k‟
