Gambhir Singh vs Union Of India Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Defence & Ors

The appellant was enrolled as Rifle man in the Indian Army on 24.06.1980. He was discharged on 11.08.1994 after a show cause notice was issued due to five red ink entries against him. As the service rendered by him was for 14 years 1 month 16 days, he fell short of 10 months and 15 days for earning service pension.

The appellant filed writ petition No.6014 of 1999 before the High Court of Delhi questioning the validity of the order of discharge. The appellant also sought for service pension by condoning the shortfall of his service.

The High Court by a judgment dated 10.10.2006 declined to interfere with the order of discharge. However, the High Court directed the respondents to consider the representation that may be made by the appellant for condonation of the shortfall of service for grant of pension.

The appellant preferred a representation dated 31.05.2007 seeking condonation of the period of shortfall in qualifying service. The Ministry of Defence by a letter dated 10.04.2008 informed the appellant that the Adjutant General had granted sanction for grant of service pension for shortfall of 10 months and 15 days of service and granted service pension to the appellant w.e.f the date of the representation i.e. 31.05.2007. The appellant filed O.A.No.52/2013 aggrieved by the letter dated 10.2.2018 before the Armed Forces Tribunal. The appellant sought for a relief that he should be paid pension w.e.f. 23.06.1995, the date on which he would have completed the qualifying period of 15 years service.

The Tribunal was of the opinion that the respondent granted the benefit of condonation of the shortfall in qualifying service. The respondents have taken into account the entire service record of the appellant before concluding that the appellant is entitled for the payment of pension only from the date of representation. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the discretion of the respondents.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal as we are of the opinion that the grant of pension from the date of representation is the result of a discretion properly exercised by the authorities.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any stand disposed of.