TA No. 126 of 2010. Case: C. Krishnan, S/o. Kelu Nair, Aged 65 Years, Ex Sapper No. 1329413, Chellattandavida House, Elangode P.O., Panoor VIA, Kannur District, Kerala State-670692 Vs The Union of India, Represented by Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi, Pin 110066 and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberTA No. 126 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: Sri. M.P. Vijayan, Adv. and For Respondents: Sri. P.J. Philip, Central Govt. Counsel for R1 to R5
JudgesMr. Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J) and Lt. Gen. Thomas Mathew, PVSM, AVSM, Member (A)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateOctober 09, 2012
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal

Order:

Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J), (Regional Bench, Kochi)

  1. Heard Mr. M.P. Vijayan for the petitioner and Mr. P.J. Philip, Central Government Counsel for the respondents, and perused the record. The petitioner filed initially the Writ Petition (C) No. 29474 of 2007 in the Honourable High Court of Kerala for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his DSC service in addition to the Army Service for the purpose of pension. After the constitution of the Tribunal, the Writ Petition has been received by transfer from the High Court and has been registered as T.A. No. 126 of 2010.

  2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 20.11.1962 as Sapper in the MEG Centre and was discharged therefrom on 30.9.1978 on completion of 15 years and 315 days service, vide service certificate, (Ext. P1). It is also alleged that the petitioner was kept in reserve liability for two years even after discharge (Ext. P7). After the discharge, the petitioner was re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps, Kannur and served there from 2.11.1983 to 31.01.1996 (12 years, 90 days) but could not earn any pension for the DSC service as his service had a shortfall of 2 years and 9 months. The contention on behalf of the petitioner was that his Army service as well as DSC service tenures were liable to be clubbed together for the purpose of pension, but the respondents have denied it on altogether untenable grounds.

  3. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner while joining the DSC service opted to retain Army pension and did not press for addition of Army service with DSC service, therefore, there was no question of clubbing of both the service for pension purpose. Counsel for the petitioner very frankly conceded that petitioner was regularly drawing pension from the Army during his tenure in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT