Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.11.2024
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Prakash, SPC.
Maj. Anish Murlidhar (Army).
SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Banvendra Singh Gandhar & Mr. Ravi Kant Gautam, Advs.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 15396/2024 & CM APPL. 64546-547/2024
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in OA No. 1871/2023, titled Smt Dhanuli Devi Wd/o Late L/Nk (DSC) Pan Singh v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal disposed of the OA filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions:-
3. Before the learned Tribunal, it was the case of the respondent herein that the respondent’s late husband was enrolled in the Indian Army on 14.05.1962 and discharged from service on 31.05.1977, after completing pensionable service. Thereafter, he was enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (in short, ‘DSC’) of the Army on 20.09.1983 and was discharged from service on 31.05.1998, after rendering 14 years 8 months and 11 days of service. As there was a shortfall of 111 days in completing 15 years of service to become eligible for the second service pension in the DSC, the same was denied to the respondent. Consequently, forcing the respondent to approach the learned Tribunal in the form of the above OA under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, praying for a direction to the petitioner herein to condone the above shortfall in service and to grant service pension.
4. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal allowed the petition with the above-quoted directions.
5. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has challenged the same inter alia contending that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in condoning the shortfall of 111 days of the respondent, thereby completing the qualifying service of the respondent for pension in the DSC.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further asserts that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the Policy Letter No.14(02)/2011/D/(Pen/Pol) dated 20.06.2017 issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Defence (Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare), which states that no condonation shall be allowed for grant of second service pension.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, we find no force in the same.
8. This Court, by the Judgment passed in Union of India & Ors. v. Ex/NK Chinna Vediyappan, Neutral Citation 2024:DHC:6858-DB, has rejected a similar challenge by holding as under:
service in the DSC. It is only because of the provision for two service pensions in the Regulations that the respondents, while joining the DSC, did not opt for including their past service in the Indian Army and have, therefore, been deprived of benefits which could have accrued to them had they sought inclusion of their past service with the Army. Merely because the claim of the respondents, if allowed, would entitle them to earn a second pension, which is envisaged in the Regulations itself, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise a plea which is contrary to the specific provisions of the Regulations.
23. We have also considered the letters dated 23.04.2012 and 20.06.2017 issued by the Ministry of Defence, wherein it has been provided that no condonation for shortfall in qualifying service will be granted for second service pension with the DSC. Even though we find that these letters already stand quashed by the learned Tribunal in Ex Mohanan T (supra), we have, at the insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioners, examined the same, but are of the view that once the pension Regulations do not create any bar for condonation of shortfall in qualifying service, contrary instructions could not have been issued by the Ministry of Defence. It is trite law that administrative instructions cannot override the statutory regulations and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners, by way of these letters, could not deprive the respondents of the rights accruing to them under the specific provisions of the Pension Regulations.”
9. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of as infructuous.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J NOVEMBER 05, 2024/ab/B/as Click here to check corrigendum, if any