O.A. No. 163 of 2014. Case: K.M. George Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 163 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.V. Thamban, R. Reji, Thara Thamban and B. Bipin, Advs. and For Respondents: Tojan J. Vathikulam, Central Govt. Counsel |
| Judges | S.S. Satheesachandran, J. (Member (J)) and Vice Admiral M.P. Muralidharan, AVSM and Bar, NM, Member (A) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | December 10, 2015 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
Vice Admiral M.P. Muralidharan, AVSM and Bar, NM, Member (A), (Regional Bench, Kochi)
-
The Original Application has been filed by K.M. George, Ex. L-Tel of the Navy seeking reservist pension. This is the second round of litigation by the applicant, who had earlier filed O.A. No. 35 of 2014 before this Tribunal. That O.A. was disposed of directing the respondents to give due consideration to any representation moved by the applicant and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly an appeal was preferred by the applicant for reservist pension which was rejected by the respondents and hence this OA.
-
Sri M.V. Thamban, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant who was enrolled as a boy in the Indian Navy on 29 February 1956, had served in active service in the Navy till 06 June 1967 and was discharged with a reserve liability of 10 years with effect from 07 June 1957 (Annexure A1). While in the Reserves, the applicant was issued a letter in September 1977 from the Registrar of Reserves stating that he had left India prior to the date of expiry of his term of engagement from Fleet Reserve, as a money order addressed to him had been returned with remark "Payee left". The applicant was informed that he was liable for discharge from reserve for contravening Article 10 of Regulations for Indian Fleet Reserves without any terminal benefits and was asked to intimate the date on which he left India (Annexure A2). Subsequently, in October 1977 he received a letter from Commodore Naval Barracks discharging him from Fleet Reserve with effect from 19 June 1976 without any terminal benefits (Annexure A3).
-
The learned counsel further submitted that Government of India had discontinued the Fleet Reserve System vide Letter No. AD/5374/2/76/2214/S/D(N. II) dated 03 July 1976 (Annexure A4). The learned counsel also submitted that in accordance with the Government letter, existing Fleet Reservists were not required to undergo refresher training, but would be paid retaining fee till they are wasted out. He further submitted that Regulations for the Indian Fleet Reserves, 1940 had been framed under the Naval Reserve Force (Discipline) Act 1939. However after the enactment of the Indian Navy Act 1957, as per Section 186 of the said Act, the Indian Naval Reserve Forces (Discipline) Act had been repealed. Therefore the action of the respondents to deny the applicant the provisions of Regulations of Indian Fleet Reserves was illegal. He further submitted that even under the Regulations of Fleet Reserves, 1940 in accordance with Article 10(b), a reservist is permitted to seek temporary civil employment out of India with the permission of the Registrar of Reserves and a certificate in the I.N.F. 7 was to be given to the reservist for submission to his civil employer. The applicant had been issued such a certificate on 03 April 1967 (Annexure A5). Since he had been given such a certificate, the respondents cannot contend that the applicant had not obtained permission from the Registrar. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant had not failed to attend the training, nor had he been absent on...
To continue reading
Request your trial