W.P. No. 22105 of 2005. Case: Chabbilal Vs The Commanding Officer, Army Records Officer. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 22105 of 2005 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: R. Banumathi, J. and For the Respondents: V. Balasubramanian, SCGSC |
| Judges | R. Banumathi, J. |
| Issue | Payment of Bonus Act; Army Pension Regulation, 1961 |
| Judgement Date | February 25, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
R. Banumathi, J.
1. Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to make regular payment of pension with retrospective effect.
2. Brief facts which led to the filing of writ petition are as follows:
(i) Ex-Gunner Chabilal-Petitioner was enrolled on 03.03.1978 for a contractual period of 17 years in colour and 02 years in reserve. On completion of Military Training at Artillery Centre Nasik Road Camp he was posted to 61 Field Regiment on 02.06.1979 and discharged from service on 25.05.1992. After rendering 14 years 82 days Petitioner was discharged from service as undesirable by Army Headquarters letter No. A/13210/159/AG/PS-2(C) dated 28.12.1988.
(ii) As per Rule 132 of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961, the minimum period of qualifying service required for earning service pension is 15 years. Since the Petitioner had rendered only 14 years and 21 days of qualifying service and 61 days non qualifying service, it was stated that Petitioner is not entitled to service pension under the Rules. However at the time of discharge from service the Petitioner was paid the following amount under the Rules:
(a) Army Group Insurance Maturity benefits - Rs. 18,840/-
(b) Death cum Retirement Gratuity - Rs. 21,630/-
(c) Final Settlement of Account - Rs. 435/-
(d) Armed Forces Personnel Provident Fund - Rs. 19,839/-
3. Challenging the non grant of pension, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. A. Sarangabani, contended that Petitioner had served 14 years and 82 days and the last year ought to have been reckoned as one full year and the Petitioner ought to have been granted pension. It was further submitted that denial of pension is unjust and in violation of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961.
4. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr. V.Balasubramanian SCGSC, submitted Petitioner had only 14 years and 82 days of service Petitioner was qualified for only 21 days 61 days non-qualifying service. Learned Counsel for the Respondent would further submit that during his service, Petitioner was in the habit of committing offences and that he was chronic absentee and he was awarded punishment atleast five times. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner was habitual offender and he has shown utter disregard to the military discipline and set a bad example for other disciplined soldiers in the unit and therefore Petitioner was rightly discharged from service w.e.f 25.05.1992.
5. On behalf of the Respondent, reliance was placed...
To continue reading
Request your trial