Rajan P. Nair vs Union of India and Others

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Petitioner, who enrolled in the Army on 19.06.1967, was discharged on his request from such service on 22.03.1979. Thereafter, he got re-employment on 07.07.1980 with 512 Army Base Workshop, Kirkee. He resigned from that re-employment post on 18.03.1985. The service he had rendered in the Army till 22.03.1979 was for a period of 11 years 9 month and 3 days. That period is insufficient to grant him military pension. The question is whether the period of 4 years 8 months and 12 days served on re-employment from 07.07.1980 to 18.03.1985 in the 512 Army Base Workshop, Kirkee could be tagged along with the prior service till 22.03.1979 for reckoning eligibility to military pension. The learned Tribunal has considered all relevant aspects and has, succinctly, and correctly answered the legal issue by stating that the petitioner is not entitled to grant military pension, since he did not have the requisite minimum qualifying service of 15 years and that the subsequent civil service cannot be directed to be added to the military service. The learned Tribunal has rightly distinguished the decision in Kuttan Pillai Vs. Union of India, which has been cited before us also. On facts, the distinguishing features noted in paragraph No. 7 of the impugned order clearly justifies the non-applicability of Kuttan Pillai''s case (supra) as a precedent to the facts in hand. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The original petition fails.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine.