IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16720 of 2008(M)
1. SUNIL BABU, AGED 37,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. AIR OFFICER IN CHRGE,
3. CHIEF AIR STAFF, AIR FORCE
4. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF
For Petitioner :SRI.DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :22/07/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P(C) NO.16720 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
——————–
The petitioner was appointed as an Air Craftsman
(Technical) in the Indian Air Force on 31.12.1987. His original
engagement in the Air Force was for 20 years. But he sought
for premature discharge and it was granted to him as
evidenced by Exhibit P1 order with effect from 31.3.2001.
Exhibit P1 shows that at the time of the discharge of the
petitioner he had rendered 13 years and 3 months’ service.
The reasons for his discharge is given as “at his own request
before fulfilling the conditions of his engagement”. It is
further shown that he had reserve liability of two years.
2. Petitioner then applied for pension which was
rejected under Exhibit P6 order wherein it is stated that the
petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 31.12.1987
and discharged from service on 31.3.2001 at his own request
before fulfilling the conditions of his enrollment. As per
Regulation 121 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force,
W.P(C) NO. 16720 OF 2008
-: 2 :-
1961, the minimum required qualifying service to earn service
pension is 15 years and therefore petitioner is not eligible for
grant of service pension. That has been challenged in this
Writ Petition.
3. A statement has been filed by the Central
Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
It is contended that the petitioner’s period of engagement
was 20 years regular and 6 years reserve. Thus the petitioner
does not fall under the category of reserve since the petitioner
had been prematurely discharged from service on his own
request. The qualifying services considered by this Court in
Exhibits P2 to P4 judgments were in relation to persons
whose period of engagement was less then 20 years. That is
not the case of the petitioner.
4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. I
heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the
respondents.
5. Regulations 136(b) and 137 of the Air Force Pension
Regulations are referred to by the petitioner. Therefore, they
W.P(C) NO. 16720 OF 2008
-: 3 :-
are extracted hereunder.
“136. (a) …………
136(b) A reservist who is not in
receipt of a service pension and whose
period of engagement for regular service
was extended, and whose qualifying
service is less than the total period of
engagement but not less than 15 years
may, on completion of the period of
engagement or on earlier discharge from
the reserve for any cause other than at
his own request, be granted a reservist
pension at the above rate of or the
gratuity in lieu.
137. An individual who is
prematurely transferred to the reserve
under the regulations may be granted the
reservist pension irrespective of the
period of regular service rendered,
provided he has completed, on discharge,
the period of combined regular and
reserve service according to the terms of
his engagement and the entire service is
qualifying”.
W.P(C) NO. 16720 OF 2008
-: 4 :-
6. Regulation 136(b) is not, obviously, applicable to
the case of the petitioner. Because, admittedly, his discharge
from service was on his own request. The contention of the
petitioner on the basis of Regulation 136(b) is, therefore,
untenable.
7. On a reading of Exhibit P6, it seems that the
petitioner had only requested for regular pension, by
contending that the period of reserve service of two years
must be added to the period of his regular service. That was
rejected on a reference to Regulation 121 of Pension
Regulations for the Air Force, 1961 and to that extent the
stand taken in Exhibit P6 is correct. If that be so, it does not
warrant any interference.
8. Petitioner seems to have developed a case for
reservist pension only at the stage of the Writ Petition and
therefore the respondents cannot be found fault with for not
considering the petitioner’s claim and deciding it with
reference to the Pension Regulations. But since the petitioner
has now raised a claim under Regulation 137 of the Pension
Regulations, it would be appropriate that the competent
W.P(C) NO. 16720 OF 2008
-: 5 :-
authority considers the petitioner’s case in terms of
Regulation 137 of the Pension Regulations.
In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing
the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner’s claim for
reservist pension under Regulation 137 of the Pension
Regulations for the Air Force and pass appropriate orders
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. Petitioner may produce a copy of the
judgment before the 4th respondent for compliance.
V. GIRI, JUDGE.
vsv