Lt. Col. Laxmi Kant vs Union Of India & Ors.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to office memorandum dated 13.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by Ministry of Finance excluding the Short Service Commissioned Officers from New Pension Scheme and to direct the respondents to carry out necessary changes in the manner that Short Service Commissioned Officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force are covered under the ambit of the New Pension Scheme/Unified Pension Scheme and the benefits of Contributory Provident Fund, so that the petitioner can be accommodated in the respective pension policies and the benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not covered under any of the pension policy and the benefits. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed.

Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner has failed to establish the requisite locus standi to maintain the present petition or to seek the sweeping, class-wide reliefs, as prayed for. She further submits that although the petitioner claims to be a retired Short Service Commissioned Officer (SSCO), but he has not placed on record his Appointment/Commission Letter, Short Service Commission Order, terms and conditions of engagement, discharge/release order, or any other primary document establishing his status, nature of commission, period of service, and the specific pensionary/provident fund provisions applicable to him. In the absence of such foundational documents, the petitioner cannot seek declarations or directions concerning the service and pensionary conditions of an entire class of SSCOs. The petitioner is, therefore, put to strict proof of his status, entitlement and subsisting legal right to challenge the policy in question. A mere assertion of being a retired SSCO, without establishing the underlying service relationship and the specific statutory/regulatory framework applicable to him, does not confer the requisite locus standi to maintain the present proceedings or to seek the sweeping policy directions prayed for. The petition is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance.

A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner has not placed on record his appointment letter. Vide order dated 28.07.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to place on record appointment letter of the petitioner and he himself has stated today that he does not have any appointment letter. The petitioner is seeking the relief without any appointment letter. The present writ petition has been filed without any documentary proof of locus standi of the petitioner to file the present writ petition. Writ in the nature of mandamus without filing of any supporting documents with the pleadings cannot be decided. Since the petitioner is unable to show his locus standi and post on which he was appointed, therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.