Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a retired Army officer, was granted Short Service Commission in 1969 and Permanent Commission in 1974. He voluntarily retired as Major in 1991 after 22 years of service. After retirement, he was granted substantive rank of Lt. Colonel (TS) by order dated 15.10.1991. He sought revision of pension to that rank, but the respondents rejected his claim on the ground that he had not completed 21 years of reckonable service as required by Army Order dated 20.03.1990. The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the rejection. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that since the promotion order dated 15.10.1991 was never withdrawn, the appellant was entitled to pension as Lt. Colonel (TS). The court also awarded costs of Rs. 50,000/- for the unnecessary litigation.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Entitlement to Pension of Higher Rank - Army Order dated 20.03.1990 - The appellant was granted substantive rank of Lt. Colonel (TS) by order dated 15.10.1991, which was not withdrawn. The court held that the appellant cannot be denied pension applicable to that rank on the ground of shortfall in reckonable service, as the promotion order was valid and subsisting. (Paras 6-7) B) Service Law - Costs - Compensatory Costs for Unnecessary Litigation - The court awarded costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant for being dragged into avoidable litigation despite his clear entitlement. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, who was granted substantive rank of Lt. Colonel (TS) after retirement, is entitled to pension in that rank despite not completing 21 years of reckonable service as per Army Order dated 20.03.1990.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- payable to appellant within four weeks. Appellant entitled to pension as Lt. Colonel (TS).
Law Points
- Pension entitlement based on substantive rank held at retirement
- Reckonable service requirement for time-scale promotion
- Estoppel by conduct where promotion order not withdrawn
