Case Note & Summary
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an ex-Havildar of the Territorial Army challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had denied him service pension. The petitioner, enrolled on 17.10.1984 and discharged on 01.04.2005, had rendered total service of 20 years 166 days, comprising 12 years 179 days of embodied service and 7 years 353 days of unembodied service. He filed an original application before the Tribunal in 2018, contending that under the Territorial Army Act, Rules and Regulations, 1948 and the Territorial Army Pension Regulations, 1961, his entire service, including unembodied periods, should be counted as qualifying service for pension. Alternatively, he claimed Reservist pension under Para 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, or pro-rata pension under an office memorandum dated 04.11.2022. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that only embodied service qualifies for pension and that the petitioner lacked the requisite 15 years of qualifying service. Before the High Court, the petitioner reiterated these arguments, while the respondents maintained that Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, requires 15 years of actually rendered service, and for Territorial Army personnel, only embodied service qualifies as such. The Note for the Reader under the Territorial Army Pension Regulations makes it clear that all embodied service qualifies, but unembodied breaks do not count. The Court observed that the petitioner's embodied service of 12 years and 179 days fell short of the mandatory 15 years, and unembodied service could not be added. It further rejected the plea for Reservist pension, emphasizing that each category of service in the Indian Army is distinct, and a Territorial Army soldier cannot be equated with a Reservist. Regarding the argument of parity with one P.Krishnan, who was granted pension, the Court noted that Krishnan had 14 years and 81 days of embodied service, within the condonable limit, whereas the petitioner's shortfall was beyond the permissible condonation. Finding no infirmity in the Tribunal's order, the High Court confirmed it and dismissed the writ petition with no costs.
Headnote
A) Pension - Qualifying Service - Territorial Army - Embodied Service Only - Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, Regulation 132; Territorial Army Pension Regulations, 1961, Note for the Reader - The court held that for Territorial Army personnel, only embodied service qualifies as actually rendered service for pension, and unembodied service cannot be reckoned. The minimum qualifying service is 15 years of actual service as per Regulation 132. Since the petitioner had only 12 years 179 days of embodied service, he was ineligible. (Paras 5-6)
B) Pension - Reservist Category - Applicability to Territorial Army Personnel - Not Applicable - Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 - The court rejected the argument that the petitioner could be granted pension as a Reservist, holding that each category of service in the Indian Army is distinct, and a person enrolled in the Territorial Army cannot be treated as a Reservist. (Para 7)
C) Pension - Condonation of Shortfall - Embodied Service - Not Permissible Beyond Limit - Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 - The court distinguished the case of Havildar P.Krishnan, whose embodied service of 14 years 81 days was condoned, noting that the petitioner's shortfall was beyond the permissible limits of condonation. Therefore, no relief could be granted on that ground. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether unembodied service rendered by a Territorial Army soldier can be counted as qualifying service for grant of service pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, and whether he can be treated as a Reservist for pension purposes.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The order of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 16.01.2023 was confirmed. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Minimum 15 years actually rendered service required for pension under Reg. 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army
- 1961
- only embodied service qualifies for Territorial Army personnel
- unembodied service cannot be counted
- distinct categories of service cannot be interchanged
- condonation of shortfall limited
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 99
S.M.Subramaniam, K.Rajasekar
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:424
M.Selvaraj for petitioner, S.Diwakar for respondents
Ex – 10452274-L Hav M.Mayaperumal, The Records Brigade of the Guards
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence; 2. Chief of Army Staff; 3. Principal Controller Defence Accounts (Pension); 4. Officer in charge Records, Brigade of the Guard
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order of Armed Forces Tribunal that denied service pension to an ex-Havildar of the Territorial Army.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 16.01.2023 and a direction to the respondents to grant service pension, reservist pension under Para 155 of Pension Regulations for Army, 1961, or pro-rata pension under O.M. dated 04.11.2022 with all arrears and benefits from 01.04.2005.
Filing Reason
The petitioner believed that his total service of 20 years 166 days, including unembodied service of 7 years 353 days, entitled him to pension, and the Tribunal erroneously held otherwise.
Previous Decisions
The Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, by order dated 16.01.2023 in O.A.No.218 of 2018, dismissed the petitioner's original application, holding that his embodied service of only 12 years 179 days did not meet the 15-year qualifying service requirement under Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
Issues
Whether unembodied service rendered in the Territorial Army can be counted as qualifying service for pension under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
Whether the petitioner, a Territorial Army soldier, could be treated as a Reservist for pension purposes.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that under the Territorial Army Act, Rules and Regulations, 1948, and the Territorial Army Pension Regulations, 1961, the entire period of embodied and unembodied service should be reckoned as qualifying service for pension.
Petitioner alternatively contended that he should be granted Reservist pension under Para 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, or pro-rata pension as per O.M. dated 04.11.2022.
Respondents contended that Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, requires 15 years of actually rendered service, and only embodied service qualifies for Territorial Army personnel; unembodied service cannot be counted, and the application was filed after 13 years of discharge.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the minimum qualifying service for service pension is 15 years of actually rendered service. For Territorial Army personnel, as per the Note for the Reader under the Territorial Army Pension Regulations, only embodied service qualifies as actually rendered service; unembodied service, being periods of break, cannot be reckoned. Each category of service in the Indian Army is distinct, and a person enrolled in the Territorial Army cannot be treated as a Reservist. Condonation of shortfall in embodied service is permissible only within prescribed limits, and the petitioner's shortfall was beyond such limits.
Judgment Excerpts
Under the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, Regulation 132 provides the minimum qualifying service for pension. Accordingly, the minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years.
All embodied service rendered in continuation or in broken spells shall qualify for pension. ... the period of break itself shall not be treated as qualifying service for pension.
Thus the question of treating the petitioner in the reservist category would not arise at all.
the case of P.Krishnan cannot be compared with the case of the petitioner, wherein the embodied service rendered by the petitioner is beyond the realm of the powers of condonation as contemplated under the regulations.
Procedural History
The petitioner was enrolled in the Territorial Army on 17.10.1984 and discharged on 01.04.2005 as Havildar with 12 years 179 days of embodied service and 7 years 353 days of unembodied service. In 2018, he filed O.A.No.218 of 2018 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, seeking pension. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 16.01.2023 on the ground that he lacked the required 15 years of qualifying service. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.No.57 of 2024 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the Tribunal's order.
Acts & Sections
- Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961: Regulation 132
- Territorial Army Act, 1948:
- Territorial Army Pension Regulations, 1961: Note for the Reader
- Constitution of India: Article 226
