O.A. No. 67 of 2014. Case: B. Saravanan Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 67 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.K. Sikdar and S. Biju, Legal Practitioners and For Respondents: C.V. Ramachandra Murthy, CGSC |
| Judges | V. Periya Karuppiah, J. (Member (J)) and K. Surendra Nath, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 12 |
| Judgement Date | June 23, 2015 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
K. Surendra Nath, Member (Ad.), (Regional Bench At Chennai)
-
This Original Application has been filed by Ex-Hav B. Saravanan challenging the impugned order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent regarding rejection of service pension in the rank of Havildar.
-
Briefly, the applicant states that he was enrolled in the Indian Army on 28 December 1987 and was promoted to the rank of Naik on 01 August 1997, Havildar on 05 August 2002 (with seniority of 01 May 2002). The applicant submits that he was invalided out of service on 01.06.2003 after completing 15 years, 5 months and 5 days of service under Rule 13(3) III (v) of Army Rules, 1954 and was granted disability pension and pension in the rank of Naik. The applicant submits that his pension in the rank of Havildar was denied by the respondents on the ground that he did not serve 10 months in the rank of Havildar but had only served 9 months and 27 days. The applicant would contend that the Invaliding Medical Board opined that his disease "Contusion Left Leg & Osteo Arthritis Left Knee" was aggravated by military service and was granted disability pension for life and broad banded to 50%. The applicant would claim that he was arbitrarily invalided out of service without any valid reason. Even though he had applied to the 3rd respondent on 12 July 2003 for service pension in the rank of Havildar, the said pension was rejected stating that as per existing rules, he should have served 10 months in a particular rank for service pension in that rank and since the applicant had rendered less than 10 months of service in the rank of Havildar, he was not entitled for service pension in that rank. Even though the applicant represented again, it was rejected on the grounds that he was unwilling to continue in service and was not recommended for sheltered appointment by the Commanding Officer, the deficiency of 04 days service to earn pension in the rank of Havildar cannot be condoned. The applicant submits that as per the existing provisions, even one day's service in a rank would make a soldier eligible for the same rank pension and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the applicant may be granted pension in the rank of Havildar, with effect from 01 June 2003.
-
The respondents, in their reply statement, have not disputed the fact of his enrollment, promotions and discharge from service under rule 13(3) III (v) read in conjunction with Sub Rule 2A in low medical category A2 after having rendered 15 years and 155 days service. The applicant was in low medical category for disease "Osteo Arthritis (Lt) Knee" since 08 October 1998 and even though the applicant was advised to continue, he had submitted his unwillingness certificate to continue in service as per Suitability-cum-Retention Certificate dated 21 October 2002, under provisions of Army Order 46/80. Therefore, he was not recommended for retention in service by the Commanding Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial