IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24262 of 2004(L)
1. R.K.KUNJAPPAN, EX-SPR NO.1340163,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF, ARMY HEAD
3. THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, DISCIPLINE &
4. THE SENIOR RECORES OFFICER, RECORDS
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
For Respondent :SRI.R.SATHISH KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :24/02/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.24262/2004-L
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, an ex-army man has filed this writ petition
challenging Ext.P4 by which his request for sanction of pension stands
rejected by the Chief of Army staff. Ext.P4 order was passed pursuant to
the direction issued by this Court in O.P.No.5692/2001.
2. The petitioner has made the following averments in the writ
petition. He joined the Indian Army Service on 03/08/1963 as Sapper.
After training at Bangalore he was included in 405 FD company 9
Engineers Regiment and was posted to North-East Frontier area (high
altitude area)(but according to the respondents it was in the Madras
Engineering Group). He has participated in the India-Pakistan war during
the year 1965. According to the petitioner, soldiers who complete seven
years of service in the Military are entitled for reservist pension. And such
soldiers after two months training in each year for next 8 years and on
completion of such colour service is entitled for full pension. It is the case
of the petitioner that as the Army Officers usually give an option of
willingness or unwillingness to continue in service after completion of 7
years, he expressed his unwillingness to continue in service, by granting
W.P.(C) No.24262/2004
-:2:-
reservist pension. But that was denied to him. Therefore, he continued for
some more time.
3. Ext.P1 is the representation said to have been sent to the
Officer Commanding, 405 FD coy (Engineers). According to the petitioner,
he participated in the subsequent war in the year 1971 and also had
remained in the captured area in the Pakistan for a period of six months.
4. He was court marshalled on the allegation that he used criminal
force to a Superior Officer. Ultimately, his service was terminated on
08/08/1972, that is, after the completion of 9 years and 7 days in the army.
According to him, he is entitled for full pension by considering the 7 years
as reserve pension and 2 years 7 days towards the 2 months each service per
year for 8 years. As noted already, by Ext.P4 the Chief of Army Staff has
rejected his application for pension. This is not challenged in this writ
petition. It is stated in Ext.P4 that he was dismissed from service before
completing 15 years of combined service and hence, his request for reservist
pension and consequential benefits cannot be acceded to. The respondent
has filed a detail counter affidavit supporting the order passed as per Ext.P4.
5. Ext.R1 is the relevant rule concerning the matter. Ext.R1 is the
extract of Para 113(a) Pension Regulations Part (I) 1961. Going by Ext.R1,
in exceptional cases at the discretion of His Excellency the President of
India, he may be granted service pension or gratuity at a rate not exceeding
W.P.(C) No.24262/2004
-:3:-
that for which he would have otherwise qualified had he been discharged
from service on the same date. But persons dismissed from service are not
eligible for any pensionery benefits.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has already filed a representation as per Ext.P7, his mercy
petition, before the Hon’ble the President of India. It is prayed that the same
may be directed to be considered. In the above factual situation, the first
respondent is directed to take appropriate decision on Ext.P7, in the light of
Para 113(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. Whether such
benefits could be granted, is a matter for decision in accordance with the
said Rule. Orders will be passed within three months from the date of
receipt of the copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms