Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jyoti Guleria vs Union Of India Through Defence ... on 22 February, 2024
Author: Tashi Rabstan
Bench: Tashi Rabstan, Puneet Gupta
Sr. No.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2296/2023
CM No. 5341/2023
Reserved on : 15.02.2024.
Pronounced on: 22.02.2024.
Jyoti Guleria , Age 70 years
Wd/o Ex POEL (P) no.88730
Late Om Parkash Guleria
R/o D-57/1, Sainik Colony, Jammu-110011 ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mrs. S. Kour, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Mandeep Kour, Advocate.
V/s
1. Union of India through Defence Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, New Delhi-110011.
2. Chief of Naval Staff,
Sena Bhawan,
P.O. AHQ/NHQ/DHQ, New Delhi-110011.
3. Staff Officer Logistic,
Naval Pension Office,
C/O INS Tanaji,
Sion-Trombay Road,
Mankhurd Mumbai-400058
4. Lieutenant Commander,
Staff Officer (GP),
Naval Pension Office,
C/O INS Tanaji,
Sion-Tombay Road,
Mankhurd Mumbai-400058
5. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts
(Pension), Draupadighat, Allahabad-211014.
6. Director,
PDPA (Navy),
New Dehi-110011 ....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
TASHI RABSTAN,J:
1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for the following directions:-
i. To quash order dated 24.07.2023 passed by Hon'ble Armed Forces
Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu in O.A. No. 162/2023 titled
'Jyoti Guleria v/s Union of India & Ors.' by which the Armed
Forces Tribunal Srinagar Bench at Jammu has dismissed the
original application in limine, by issuance of writ of Certiorari;
ii. To issue directions to the respondents to grant/sanction special
pension in favour of late husband of petitioner (Om Parkash
Guleria) under the provisions of Regulation 95 of Navy (Pension)
Regulations 1964, to fix and release family pension in favour of the
petitioner, to release the arrears of pension retrospectively and to
give similar treatment to the petitioner as is given to other similarly
situated persons, by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
iii. To declare the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by Hon'ble Armed
Forces Tribunal Srinagar Bench at Jammu in O.A. No. 162/2023
entitled Jyoti Guleria V/s Union of India and Ors by which the
Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal Srinagar Bench at Jammu has
dismissed the original application in limine as ultra-virus, illegal,
arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of
law and rules and against the provisions of principles of natural
justice by issuance of writ of Mandamus.
2. The precise ground taken by Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned senior counsel in
this petition is that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the judgment passed
by the Supreme Court in T. S. Das and Ors. v. Union of India and anr. reported
at (2017) 4 SCC 218 and judgment passed on 28.07.2022 by the Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Mumbai in O.A. No.12/2021 titled Ex. LME
Krushnarao Patil v. Union of India and Others, in its correct perspective.
3. On the other hand, learned DSGI has supported the order passed by the
learned Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful
consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Paras 3 and 25 of the judgment in the case T. S. Das (supra) is reproduced
as:
"3. Admittedly, the applicants before the Tribunal in both cases
were appointed as Sailors in the Indian Navy before 1973. The
appointment letter noted that the concerned applicant was
engaged as a Sailor for 10 years active service and 10 years on
Fleet Reserve Services thereafter, if required. The applicants
were continued for a brief period beyond the initial term of 10
years in active service/engagement and discharged without
drafting them to Fleet Reserve Services. Thus, each applicant
was discharged by the Indian Navy after July, 1976, on
completion of their active service and was paid gratuity. As the
Tribunal granted a relief to similarly placed persons by directing
the Authorities to grant Reservist Pension/Special Pension, even
these applicants moved the Tribunal for a similar relief.
xxxxx
25. Thus understood, all Sailors appointed prior to 3 rd July, 1976
and whose tenure of initial active service/empanelment period
expired on or after 3rd July, 1976 may be eligible for a Special
Pension under Regulation 95, subject, however, to fulfilling other
requirements. In that, they have not exercised the option to take
discharge on expiry of engagement (as per Section 16 of the Act
of 1957) and yet were not and could not be drafted by the
competent Authority to the Fleet Reserve because of the Policy of
discontinuing the Fleet Reserve Service w.e.f 3rd July, 1976. The
cases of such Sailors (not limited to the original applicants
before the Tribunal) must be considered by the Competent
Authority within three months for grant of a 'Special Pension'
from three years prior to the date of application made by the
respective Sailor and release payment after giving adjustment of
Gratuity and Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity (DCRG) already
paid to them from arrears. They shall be entitled for interest
@9% P.A. on the arrears, till the date of payment.
6. Regulation 95 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 reads as under:-
"95. Special Pension and Gratuity to Sailors - When
Admissible- A special pension or gratuity may be granted at the
discretion of the Central Government, to sailors who are not
transferred to the reserve and are discharged in large number in
pursuance of Government Policy.
(i) of reducing the strength of establishment of the Indian
Navy; or
(ii) of re-organisation which results in paying off of any
ships or establishments.
7. The petitioner has sought parity for grant of special pension with the
petitioners before the Supreme Court, who were granted the benefit of
pension in the case of T.S. Das (Supra). In our view, the judgment relied
upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the case of T.S.
Das(Supra) is of no help to her as the applicants in the said petition retired
from service after July 1976 and the applicants in the case of Ex. LME
Krushnarao Patil (supra) retired in the year 1976 itself; whereas the
petitioner in the present case had been discharged from service in the year
1974. Moreover, the Supreme Court had categorically stated in its
judgment that the judgment should not be a precedent for other cases.
8. In that view of the matter, we notice no illegality in the impugned
order passed by the learned Tribunal. The same is accordingly upheld. The
petition being found bereft of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
)
(Puneet Gupta) (Tashi Rabstan)
Jammu: Judge Judge
22.02.2024
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking?: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable?: Yes/No.
