Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Venkappa on 27 May, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
1
WP(C)No.42552 of 2024
2025:KER:36874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 42552 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2023 IN RA NO.11 OF 2023 IN
OA NO.125 OF 2021 OF ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL,REGIONAL BENCH,KOCHI
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110011
2 THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF,INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS
OF MOD(ARMY), POST-DHQ, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
3 THE OFFICER - IN - CHARGE,RECORDS OFFICE, MADRAS
ENGINEERING GROUP, C/O.56 APO, PIN - 900493
4 PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS),
OFFICE OF THE PCDA (P),DRAUPADIGARH, ALLAHABAD, UTTAR
PRADESH, PIN - 211014
BY ADV R.V.SREEJITH, SCGC
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
VENKAPPA, EX-SPR (SEPOY) SERVICE NO.1320621, S/O.LATE
MALLESHAPPA, DOOR NO.48, VISWANATH COLONY, CHANDRA
BANDA ROAD, RAICHUR, KARNATAKA, PIN - 584102
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C)No.42552 of 2024
2025:KER:36874
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the respondents in R.A. No.11 of 2023 in O.A.No.125
of 2021, before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi
('the Tribunal' for short), challenging the order dated 21.06.2023
passed by the Tribunal, whereby the petitioners/respondents are
directed to pay 2/3rd of minimum pension of a regular Sepoy to
the respondent/applicant with effect from 01.01.2016 along with
entitled allowances.
2. The facts in brief, which led to the filing of this writ
petition, are as follows:
The respondent joined the Indian Army on 17.08.1960. After 7
years of regular service, was transferred to reserve service and
discharged from reserve service on 30.09.1975. On discharge,
was granted with Reservist pension with effect from 01.10.1975
for life. Claiming that as per Regulation 155 of Pension Regulations
for the Army, 1961, is entitled to receive 2/3rd of the Sepoy rank
pension as a Reservist, but with effect from 01.07.2014 (OROP),
2025:KER:36874
reservist pension was not enhanced by the respondents to 2/3 rd
of the Sepoy rank pension, the respondent approached the
Tribunal with the O.A. filed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007. By the order dated 13.04.2022, though the
Tribunal found that the respondent is entitled to receive 2/3 rd of
the Sepoy rank pension as a Reservist, dismissed the original
application holding that the respondent is receiving reservist
pension of Rs.9,000/- with effect from 01.01.2016, as authorised
by the Government of India vide PCDA(P) Allahabad circular
No.570 dated 31st October 2016 and hence there is no legal
validity in his claim for enhanced reservist pension at Rs.4,443/
from 01.07.2014 and Rs.11,420/- from 01.01.2016. The
respondent then filed R.A No.11 of 2023 before the Tribunal,
pointing out that there is an error apparent on the face of the
record in the said order. By the impugned order dated
21.06.2023, the Tribunal found that there is error crept in the
dismissal order of the O.A. by restricting the pension to Rs.9,000/-
from 01.01.2016 and not at 2/3rd of the minimum pension of a
regular Sepoy as on 01.01.2016 as per the provisions in
Regulation 155 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I).
2025:KER:36874
3. Heard Sri.R.V Sreejith, the learned Senior Central
Government Counsel (SCGC) appearing for the petitioners. In
spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent.
4. The learned SCGC submitted that the pension payable
to the respondent was revised from time to time according to pay
commissions. But, as per the Government of India, Ministry of
Defence, Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare letter dated
03.02.2016 and subsequent circular No.555 dated 04.02.2016,
the respondent who was discharged from service as a reservist
and has already been paid reservist pension, therefore not eligible
for enhancement of pension. The Tribunal went wrong by allowing
the review application filed by the respondent.
5. Admittedly, the respondent/applicant was discharged from
service as a reservist on 30.09.1975. He has been in receipt of
reservist pension. But, the respondent claims that he has not been
paid the legitimately entitled reservist pension at 2/3 rd of the
minimum rank pension of a Sepoy on enhanced rates. Thus,
according to him, he is entitled to receive Rs.4,443/- per month
from 01.07.2014 against Rs.3500/- being paid to him, and
Rs.11,420/- per month against Rs.9,000/- being paid to him with
2025:KER:36874
effect from 01.01.2016.
6. Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations for the
Army, 1961 (Part I), which is extracted in Paragraph 12 of the
order of the Tribunal dated 13.04.2022 in the O.A. deals with
pension payable to reservist, reads thus:
"155. An OR reservist who is not in receipt of a service
pension may be granted on completion of the
prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying
service, of not less than 15 years, a reservist pension
equal to 2/3rd of the lowest pension admissible to a
Sepoy, but in no case less than Rs.375/- p.m. on his
transfer to pension establishment either on
completion of his term of engagement or prematurely
irrespective of the period of colour service."
7. Reading the said provision along with PCDA(P) circular
Nos. 430, 501 and 555, which were extracted in paragraph 10 of
the order passed in the original application, the Tribunal found that
the respondent is entitled to 2/3rd of the minimum pension of a
Sepoy as revised from time to time, but is not entitled to OROP
benefit. However, by an erroneous finding that a sum of
Rs.9,000/- received by the respondent covers 2/3rd of the
minimum pension of a regular Sepoy as on 01.01.2016, the O.A.
was dismissed by the Tribunal. Later, on realising the mistake on
2025:KER:36874
a conjoint reading of Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations
for the Army, 1961 (Part I) and circular 570 of PCDA(P) dated
31.10.2016, the Tribunal corrected the order passed in the O.A.
as said above. Paragraph 4 of the Circular 570 of PCDA(P) dated
31.10.2016, which applies to Defence Forces Pensioners/family
pensioners as on 01.01.2016, which is extracted in paragraph 12
of the impugned order reads thus:
"4.4 Minimum and Maximum Pension: The minimum basic
pension with effect from 01.01.2016 will be Rs.9,000/- per
month (excluding the element of additional pension
admissible to old pensioners). The upper ceiling of
pension/family pension will be 50% and 30% respectively
of the highest pa in the Government. The highest pay in
the Government is Rs.2,50,000/- with effect from
01.01.2016.
5. Where the revised pension/family pension in terms of
para 5.1 of Govt. letter No.17(01)/2016-D (Pen/Pol) dated
29th October 2016 works out to an amount less than
Rs.9,000/-, the same shall be stepped up to Rs.9,000/-.
This will be regarded as pension/family pension with effect
from 01.01.2016."
8. Admittedly, the respondent enrolled in the Indian Army
on 17.08.1960 and was on regular service for 7 years. Thereafter,
he was transferred to reserve service and discharged on
2025:KER:36874
30.09.1975 and thus he has altogether 15 years 1 month and 15
days of total service. The petitioners have no case that the
respondent is not entitled for reservist pension. He is qualified for
reservist pension as mentioned in Regulation 155 of the Pension
Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I) as he had completed the
prescribed combined colour and reserve service of not less than
15 years. Having anxiously considered the materials placed on
record in the light of the provisions (supra), and the submissions
made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to say that the
Tribunal grossly erred in reaching to a right finding while passing
the impugned order.
9. At this juncture the learned SCGC appearing for the
petitioners submitted that the Apex Court by an interim order
interfered with the judgment dated 27.09.2024 in
C.W.P.No.17046 of 2024 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in Union of India and others v. Darshan Singh Bal
and others, whereby the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal
granting revised reservist pension to the pensioner was affirmed
by the High Court. But we are of the view that each and every
case is based upon the facts and cannot be treated as an order in
2025:KER:36874
rem for adjudication of the dispute, in view of the judgment dated
24.06.2024 in WP(C) No.43207 of 2023 and connected cases
passed by this Court. In this view of the matter, findings of fact
and law arrived at by the Tribunal do not require any interference
by this Court, exercising the power of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
sks
2025:KER:36874
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42552/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.125/2021, FILED BY THE
APPLICANT, BEFORE THE AFT KOCHI
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS IN EXT.P1 O.A
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 125/2021 DATED
13.04.2022 OF THE HON'BLE AFT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE R.A.11/2023, FILED BY THE
APPLICANT, BEFORE THE AFT KOCHI IN OA
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.A.NO.11/2023 IN
OA 125/2021 DATED 21.06.2023 OF THE HON'BLE
AFT
