Case Note & Summary
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai in O.A.No.138 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner’s claim for grant of Reservist Pension or Special Pension under the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961. The petitioner, Ex LAC R. Jayadheer Reddy, was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 17.10.1963 with a term of engagement of 9 years regular service and 6 years reserve service. However, he was actually discharged on 01.01.1974 after rendering 10 years and 77 days of service on the ground that he was not required to serve in the Reserve. Consequently, he never served in the Reserve and therefore did not complete the required 15 years of combined qualifying service for Reservist Pension under Regulation 136(a). The petitioner alternatively claimed Special Pension under Para 144 of the Regulations, contending that persons not afforded an opportunity to serve in the Reserve are eligible for such pension, and relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in T.S.Das vs Union of India and an order of the Tribunal in another similar case. The Union of India opposed the claim, arguing that the petitioner did not meet the conditions for either pension. The High Court examined the scheme of the Pension Regulations. It noted that Service Pension requires 15 years of qualifying service, Reservist Pension requires 15 years of combined colour and reserve service with actual service in the Reserve, and Special Pension under Para 144 is a discretionary grant made only when individuals are not transferred to the Reserve and are discharged in large numbers pursuant to a government policy of reducing establishment strength or reorganisation. The Court found that the petitioner had not been formally transferred to the Reserve, which was a prerequisite upheld by the Supreme Court in other cases, and thus was ineligible for Reservist Pension. Regarding Special Pension, the Court emphasised that the language of Para 144 is permissive and the power is discretionary, to be exercised only in cases of mass discharge under a government policy, not for an individual discharge like the petitioner’s. The Court further held that the Supreme Court’s judgment in T.S.Das had been rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution and therefore could not be treated as a precedent for granting relief in every case. Finding no infirmity in the Tribunal’s order, which was in consonance with the Regulations, the High Court dismissed the writ petition with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law – Pension – Reservist Pension – Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, Regulation 136(a) – A formal transfer to Reserve Service is a prerequisite for claiming Reservist Pension; mere enrollment with a reserve liability does not suffice. The petitioner was discharged after 10 years 77 days without being transferred to the Reserve, thus not fulfilling the qualifying service requirement – Held, the Tribunal correctly rejected the claim for Reservist Pension as the condition of actual reserve service was not met (Paras 6-7). B) Service Law – Pension – Special Pension – Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, Para 144 – Special Pension is a discretionary grant by the President for individuals not transferred to the Reserve and discharged in large numbers pursuant to government policy of reduction or reorganisation; it is not an absolute right and must be based on policy-driven mass discharge, not individual release – Held, the petitioner’s discharge on fulfilling conditions of enrolment did not attract Para 144; the Supreme Court’s relief in T.S.Das was under Article 142 and cannot be applied as a binding precedent by the High Court (Paras 7-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to Reservist Pension or Special Pension under the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, and whether the Armed Forces Tribunal's denial of such relief is legal
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal. It held that the petitioner was not eligible for Reservist Pension due to absence of formal transfer to Reserve Service, and denied Special Pension as it is a discretionary grant for mass discharges under government policy, not applicable to his individual case. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Reservist Pension requires formal transfer to Reserve Service
- Special Pension under Para 144 of Pension Regulations for Air Force
- 1961 is discretionary and not a matter of right
- relief under Article 142 of Constitution is not a precedent for High Courts
- power of discretion must be exercised judiciously and in deserving cases only
