Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2001) 01 SC CK 0107

Union of India (UOI) and Others vs SPS Dhinda N.M.

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 17 January 2001 · Citation: AIR 2001 SC 2681 : (2001) AIRSCW 2520 : (2001) 90 FLR 548 : (2001) 5 JT 295 : (2001) LabIC 2391 : (2001) 2 LLJ 488 : (2001) 4 SCALE 237 : (2001) 5 SCC 540 : (2001) 3 SCR 796 : (2001) 3 SCT 758 : (2001) 5 Supreme 20 : (2001) 2 UJ 1335

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. P. Sethi, J · K. T. Thomas, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No: 7804 of 1997

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

5 paragraphs · 350 words

K.T. Thomas J.-Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 18889 of 1998.

2.

Applications for restoration/intervention are dismissed as withdrawn. In all these matters when the arguments proceeded, the main point emphasised is this :

2.

Whether the Court Martial has power under Section 71 of the Army Act, while imposing punishment, to deal with pensionary benefits. If the Court Martial has the power, can the power under non-statutory regulations like Regulations 16(a) and 113 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 Part I be further exercised to forfeit the pensionary benefits of an officer ? [Regulation 16(a) is intended to apply to commissioned officers and Regulation 113 is intended to apply to personnel below the rank of officers, otherwise both the Regulations are identical.]

3.

Mr. P. P. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India invited our attention to a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Brig. P. K. Dutta (Retd.) in which the question was considered whether Section 71(h) of the Army Act and Regulation 16(a) of the Pension Regulations would overlap each other and it was held that they are intended to cover two different stages of two different fields.Mr. Harish Uppal, learned counsel invited our attention to an unreported three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Lt. Col. (T.S.) Harbans Singh Sandhu v. Union of India (WP (C) No. 553 of 1972, dated 22-11-1978) (by Hon''ble V. R. Krishna Iyer, P. S. Kailasam and A. D. Koshal, JJ.) and contended that the observations therein had taken a different stand, but unfortunately the said decision was not brought to the notice of the two-Judge Bench while dealing with Brig. P. K. Dutta. Mr. PP. Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel contended that the three-Judge Bench decision referred to above had not taken a different view.

4.

We deem it necessary that this question is heard and decided by a larger Bench, due to the importance of its application to personnel in the Defence Department. Hence, these appeals can be placed for appropriate orders of the Hon''ble the Chief Justice of India.