Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 12 AFT CK 0022

Smt Jainti Devi Wd/o Late Sep (DSC) Kashi Chand vs Union of India & Ors

Armed Forces Tribunal · Decided on 8 December 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Menon, Chairperson, (J) · P.M. Hariz, Member (A)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
MA 2890 Of 2021 in OA 1564 Of 2021 with MA 1463 Of 2021 & MA 2698 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 1,610 words

M.A. No. 2890 of 2021:

In view of the fact that the present OA is covered by the decision  rendered  by  the  Larger  Bench  of this  Tribunal  on 01.10.2019 in the case of  Smt.  Shama Kaur  Vs.  Union of India & Ors. [0.A. No.  1238 of 2016], and can be disposed of accordingly,  the  application  for early hearing is allowed.   As such, OA is being taken up today.

MA stands disposed of.

M.A. No.  1463 of 2021:

Heard  learned  counsel  for the  parties  on  the  point  of delay. Delay of 7639 days in filing the OA has been explained by the applicant. Keeping in view the averments made in the MA and finding the same to be bonafide and in the light of the decision in  Union of India and others  Vs.  Tarsem Singh [2008 (8) SCC 648], we allow the instant MA and condone the aforesaid delay in filing the OA.

MA stands disposed of accordingly.

M.A. No. 2698 of 2021:

Vide  this  application,  respondents  seek condonation of delay in filing the Reply Statement. Delay is condoned. Reply Statement is taken on record.

MA stands disposed of accordingly.

O.A. No. 1564 of 2021:

1.

By means of the present OA, applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section  14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, praying for grant of second service pension for the service rendered by her husband, since deceased, in Defence Security Corps (DSC), which was denied by the respondents on the ground of not having completed the mandatory qualifying service of 15 years to make him eligible for the said pension,  till  the  date  of his  death  i.e. 17.11.2017  and  for family pension after the death of her husband i.e. 18.11.2017.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant's husband was enrolled in the Army on 13.10.1965 and discharged from that service on 31.01.1980 (31.10.1980 sic) after more than 15 years of service. Thereafter, the husband of the applicant was re-enrolled in the DSC of the Army on 29.01.1986 and was discharged from that service on 31.10.2001 after rendering 14 years and  10 months of service in  DSC.   Hence,  there is a shortfall  of  02 months  to complete 15  years  of  service  to become eligible for second service pension in DSC.

3.

With regard to prayer for grant of second service pension in DSC, it may be noticed that the applicant's husband has been denied pension  for  the  spell  of service  in  DSC  on the ground that  he  has not  completed the minimum required qualifying service of 15 years.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Rule  125 of Pension  Regulation  of the  Army  as  per  which, shortfall  in qualifying service for the grant of  pensionary benefits in respect of personnel below officer rank (PBOR)  shortfall upto 12  months  can  be  condoned  by the  competent authority to earn  service  pension.  He  further  submitted  that  the  same issue was  also  decided  by the  Armed  Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in its judgment dated 07.11.2013 in O.A. No. 60 of 2013 in the matter of Bhani Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors. as well as in its judgment dated  14.08.2014 of O.A. No. 80 of 2014.

5.

Heard the submissions of the counsel for both the parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

6.

Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact about the re-enrollment of  the applicant  in DSC on 29.01.1986 and discharge from service on 31.10.2001 and the service rendered by him in DSC is  14 years and  10 months. Respondents have no objections in issuing appropriate orders subject to verification of records.

7.

The issue involved in this case is no longer res integra, as the same had already been settled by this Tribunal in the cases of Bhani Devi (supra), Ex Nk Vijay Singh Vs.  Union of India and others [0.A.  No. 272 of  2018 decided on 14.10.20201 and the Kochi Bench of this Tribunal in Ex Mc Mohanan T. Vs. Union of India and others [0.A. No. 131 of 2017 decided on 12.10.2017]. In Bhani Devi's case (supra), it was  held that the  provisions for condonation of shortfall in service under Regulation  125 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961,  (Part  I)  are  equally  applicable  to  armed forces personnel serving in DSC, making them eligible for grant of second service pension. Against the order in Ex Nk Mohanan T.  (supra),  granting condonation  of shortfall of DSC  service, subsequent to issue of  Government of  India (Ministry of Defence)   letter  dated 20.06.2017,   the   respondents  had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal (Diary)  No. 27100 of 2018, which was dismissed vide  order dated 27.08.2018 and thus the matter has attained finality.  In Ex Nk  Vijay Singh (supra),  while referring to the Full Bench decision of this Tribunal in Smt. Shama Kaur Vs.  Union of India & others etc. etc. (0.A.  No.  1238 of 2016 etc. etc.) passed on  01.10.2019,  which  dealt with  the  question as to whether there should be condonation of deficiency of service for grant of second service pension of DSC like Regular Army personnel in terms of Government of India (Ministry of Defence)  letter  dated 14.08.2001 and  Para  44  of the  Army Pension Regulations or be dealt with in terms of Government of India  (Ministry  of Defence)  letter  dated  20.06.2017,  this Tribunal quoted Para 44 of judgment dated 01.10.2019 in the case of Shama Kaur (supra), which reads as under:

" (a)  The  aspect  has  been  discussed  in full detail in our discussion above on merits. It needs no further emphasis that the DSC is a part  of the  Army  and  is  also  treated  as  a "Corps" under Rule 187(1)(r) of the Army Rules, 1954, read with  Section 3(vi)  of the Army Act, 1950. Further the same pensionery provisions as applicable to the three defence services  are applicable  to  the  DSC  and  all such personnel taken together are referred as "Armed  Forces  Personnel"  as  becomes  clear from the opening  paragraphs of Letter  No. 1(5)87/D (Pension/Services) dated 30.10.1987, Letter   No. 1(6)J98D(Pension/Services)   dated 03.02. 1998, Letter No. 17(4)] 2008(2)/D(Pen/Pol) dated 12.11.2008 and Para 3.1 of Letter No.17(02)/2016-D(Pen/Pol)  dated 04.09.2017 issued by the Ministry of Defence after the  4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Central Pay Commissions respectively.

(b) The  matter  has  already  been  decided  by Constitutional  Courts  and  this  Tribunal  and implemented by the Respondents, especially in the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Union of India v. L1VK DSC Mani Ram   (LPA   No. 755   of 2010   decided   on 05.07.2010),  the Hon'ble  Delhi High  Court in Ex Sep Madan Singh v.  Union of India (W.P (C) No. 9593 of 2003), this Bench in Bhani Devi V. Union of India and others (0.A No.  60 of 2013 decided on  07.11.2013) and the Kochi Bench in Mohanan T v.  Union of India (0.A No.  131 of 2017 decided  on  12.10.2017).   The   letters purportedly amending the relevant provisions have also been  held contrary to  law vide the above.  In  light of  this,  coupled with the merits of the matter discussed in the instant judgement, there can be no scope of any doubt that   DSC  personnel  are fully  entitled  to condonation  of deficiency of service for their second spell of service at par with other Army personnel.  In fact,  as  discussed  in  the  main body of this  judgement,  DSC personnel  re enrolling  themselves  by  opting  not  to  count their past military service have no connection at all with their past service as far as pension is concerned and their service in DSC is fresh service delinked from their past service.

(c) Further, the Respondents have themselves stated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chattar Pal (supra) that condonation upto  one  year  is  possible,  and  once Constitutional  Courts, including the highest Court  of  the  land,  have  upheld  the proposition, it  is  beyond the scope of  any bench  of this  tribunal  to hold  or  comment otherwise.  We  hence answer this question  in the above terms."

8.

Taking into account the aforesaid factual and legal aspects, we are of the considered view that the facts of this case are also squarely covered by the decisions of Bhani Devi (supra)  and  Ex  Nk  Vijay  Singh  (supra)  and,  therefore,  the shortfall  of 02 months  to  complete 15  years  of qualifying service in DSC  by the late  husband  of the  applicant to get second  service  pension  is  liable  to  be  condoned  and  he  is entitled to  get second  pension  for  DSC  till  his  death  i.e. 17.11.2017 and  thereafter  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  get family pension w.e.f. 18.11.2017.

9.

The instant OA is, therefore, allowed with the following directions :

(i)  The shortfall of 02 months for qualifying service for second service pension for the services rendered by the applicant's husband, since deceased, in DSC is condoned. However,   if the   respondents  on, verification of the records, find a different figure of number of days requiring to be condoned, then it is directed  that  they  shall  accord  the  required condonation as  long as  the  period  of shortfall  is less than 12 months.

(ii)  Subject   to   verification   of  the   records,  the respondents  are  directed  to  issue  a  corrigendum PPO granting second service pension for the service rendered by late husband of the applicant in DSC, from the date of his discharge till the date of his death  i.e. 17.11.2017  and  thereafter  granting Family Pension to the applicant w.e.f. 18.11.2017. (iii) The arrears shall be paid within four months from  the  date  of receipt  of a  copy  of this  order.  In default, the applicant will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum till payment.

10.

There is no order as to costs.