Case at a Glance
A Territorial Army veteran was denied terminal gratuity for his Territorial Army service on the strength of a Ministry of Defence letter dated 30 October 2018. The Armed Forces Tribunal (Regional Bench, Lucknow, sitting at Nainital) set aside the denial in 2021, holding that he was entitled to terminal benefits under the Pension Regulations, which have statutory force. The Union of India challenged that ruling, and similar ones, in a batch of writ petitions. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Subhash Upadhyay agreed with the Tribunal that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions, noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Union’s appeal in an identical matter, and dismissed all the writ petitions.
The respondent served in the Territorial Army. His claim for terminal gratuity for that service was refused on the basis of a Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 30 October 2018. He approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow (Circuit Bench, Nainital) in Original Application No. 422 of 2021. By its judgment of 17 November 2021, the Tribunal partly allowed his application, set aside the rejection of his terminal gratuity claim and held that he was entitled to terminal benefits for the services rendered in the Territorial Army.
The Tribunal relied on Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and paragraph 189(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, Part-I (2008), which provides that terminal gratuity shall be granted to an individual who has completed a minimum of five years of aggregate embodied service in the Territorial Army. It held that the 2018 letter “cannot supersede” the Pension Regulations, which are statutory. It also reasoned that “if an individual can be granted double pension for services rendered in the army, then terminal gratuity can also be granted.” The Union of India challenged this judgment in the High Court, together with nine connected writ petitions raising the same question.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a Ministry of Defence letter be used to deny Territorial Army personnel the terminal gratuity provided under paragraph 189(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army?
Statutory Regulations Prevail Over Executive Instructions
Counsel for the respondents told the Division Bench that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the Union of India’s challenges to identical Tribunal judgments, citing the order of 18 November 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 13775 of 2025, Union of India v. Diwan Singh. The Bench noted that the Tribunal had considered the relevant Supreme Court rulings. The authorities referred to in the judgment include Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuwanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421, and Vidyadhar Pande v. Vidyut Grih Siksha Samiti, (1988) 4 SCC 734.
The High Court found that the Tribunal had correctly held that “Executive Instructions cannot override Statutory provisions.” The Pension Regulations have the force of law, and the 30 October 2018 letter could not cut down the entitlement they confer. Stating that “we do not find any scope for interference with the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal”, the Court held that the writ petitions failed and dismissed them.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Pension Regulations for the Army have statutory force; paragraph 189(a) grants terminal gratuity to Territorial Army personnel with at least five years of aggregate embodied service.
- Executive instructions, such as the Ministry of Defence letter dated 30 October 2018, cannot override statutory provisions.
- The Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment of 17 November 2021 had considered the relevant Supreme Court rulings and correctly applied the law; the Supreme Court had also dismissed the Union’s challenge in the identical Diwan Singh matter.
- Finding no scope for interference, the Division Bench dismissed the Union of India’s writ petitions (lead WPSB No. 323 of 2024 and connected matters).
Why This Judgment Matters
- For Territorial Army veterans denied terminal gratuity on the basis of the 2018 letter, this batch ruling, following the Supreme Court’s dismissal in Diwan Singh, strengthens their claims.
- It reaffirms a basic principle of service law: statutory rules and regulations prevail over executive letters.
- It shows that the Union’s repeated challenges to settled Tribunal rulings are unlikely to succeed once the Supreme Court has declined to interfere.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Veterans
- If your terminal gratuity for Territorial Army service was denied under the 30 October 2018 letter, check whether you have at least five years of aggregate embodied service under para 189(a).
- An application can be made to the Armed Forces Tribunal, citing this ruling and the Supreme Court’s order in Diwan Singh.
- Keep records of embodiment periods and any pension already sanctioned for other service.
For Counsel
- Rely on the principle that executive instructions cannot override statutory Pension Regulations, as applied by the Tribunal and upheld here.
- Place the Supreme Court’s order of 18 November 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 13775 of 2025 on record.
- Check embodiment records carefully, since the five-year threshold in para 189(a) is counted on aggregate embodied service.
Key Takeaways
- Para 189(a) of the Pension Regulations grants terminal gratuity for five years’ aggregate embodied TA service.
- The MoD letter of 30 October 2018 cannot override the statutory Regulations.
- AFT’s 2021 ruling in favour of the veteran upheld.
- All ten Union of India writ petitions dismissed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is terminal gratuity for Territorial Army personnel?
Under paragraph 189(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, Part-I (2008), as quoted in the judgment, terminal gratuity is granted to an individual who has completed a minimum of five years of aggregate embodied service in the Territorial Army.
Why was the Ministry of Defence letter of 30 October 2018 not applied?
Because the Pension Regulations are statutory, and executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The Tribunal held the letter cannot supersede the Regulations, and the High Court agreed.
Has the Supreme Court considered this issue?
According to the judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India’s challenge to an identical Tribunal ruling by its order of 18 November 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 13775 of 2025, Union of India v. Diwan Singh.
Conclusion
The ruling closes another round of litigation in which the Union sought to deny Territorial Army veterans a benefit written into the Pension Regulations. With the Supreme Court having already declined to interfere in an identical matter, the High Court saw no reason to disturb the Tribunal’s view.
Practical takeaway: Territorial Army veterans denied terminal gratuity under the 2018 letter should rely on para 189(a) and this line of rulings; executive instructions do not override the statutory Regulations.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com