O.A. No. 48 of 2015. Case: K.M. George Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 48 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V.K. Sathyanathan, Adv. 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 | Navy Act, 1957 - Sections 184, 187 |
| Judgement Date | December 02, 2015 |
| Court | Armed Forces Tribunal |
Order:
S.S. Satheesachandran, J. (Member (J)), (Regional Bench, Kochi)
1. The applicant, an Ex-serviceman, has filed the above application for quashing Annexure A8 and to issue directions to the respondents to grant him service pension.
2. The applicant got enrolled in the Indian Navy on 8.7.1960 with terms of engagement of 10 years regular and 10 years reserve. On completion of the regular service and discharge on 7.7.1970 he was transferred to reserve for 10 years. His reserve period of 10 years was completed successfully, and he was sanctioned reservist pension at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1980. Pension of the applicant was subsequently revised to minimum pension from time to time as in force. Coming to know that the pension paid to him was less he made a representation to the authorities. Treating it as a request for revising the pension, sanction was accorded to grant him revised minimum pension as per the VI Central Pay Commission. The applicant coming to know that a person who had served 10 years regular and 10 years reserve is entitled to service pension of 15 years converting 10 years reserve as 5 years regular, moved Annexure A4 representation for granting him eligible service pension. His request was turned down vide Annexure A5 holding that he was not eligible for service pension since he had not completed the mandatory period of 15 years of qualifying service. His further request made to the second respondent (Chief of the Naval Staff) vide Annexure A6 was also turned down vide Annexure A7. The applicant, at that point of time, came to know that this Tribunal in O.A. No. 8 of 2013 analysing Regulation 32 of the Regulations for the Indian Fleet Reserve, 1940 has observed that those enrolled in the Indian Fleet Reserve without earning a pension from the regular service will be entitled to count 50% of their service in Fleet Reserve as reckonable service towards pension. Applicant again moved the Naval authorities filing a representation requesting for reckoning 50% of his service in fleet reserve with the regular service, to grant him eligible service pension. His request was turned down vide Annexure A8 holding that there is no such criterion for counting 5 years reserve service with 10 years active service for pension under the Pension Regulations for the Navy, 1964 (for short the Regulations). He has thereupon filed the above application for quashing Annexure A8 and issuing direction to the respondents to pay him service pension reckoning 50% of his reserve service with the regular service, from the date of his discharge from reserve service.
3. The respondents have filed a reply statement controverting the claim of the application for service pension. Applicant on completion of active service of 10 years was discharged on 7.7.1970 and was drafted into Indian Fleet reserve w.e.f. 8.7.1970 for further period of 10 years, according to the respondents. Completing the period of reserve service he was discharged on 31.7.1980 and was sanctioned reservist pension of Rs. 50/- per month. He is not entitled to service pension as he has not completed the minimum qualifying service of 15 years as mandated under Regulation 78 of the Regulations. He has been granted reservist pension in terms of Regulation 92 of the Regulations. There is no provision for counting 10 years reserve with the regular service for granting pension under the Regulations. Eligibility for service pension and...
To continue reading
Request your trial