Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai Bench, which had granted Special Pension to an ex-serviceman. The respondent, enrolled in the Indian Army in 1964, had completed 11 years and 69 days of Colour Service and was discharged in 1975 without being transferred to the Reserve. The Armed Forces Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in T.S.Das case, granted Special Pension under Para 164 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961. The Union of India contended that Special Pension is a discretionary power of the President and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and that the respondent did not fulfil the conditions of the regulation. The High Court examined the three kinds of pensions under the Pension Regulations: Service Pension requiring 15 years of qualifying service, Reservist Pension for those with combined colour and reserve service, and Special Pension under Para 164. The court noted that Special Pension is an exceptional measure available only when individuals are not transferred to Reserve and are discharged in large numbers due to government policy of reducing strength or reorganisation. The language of Para 164 uses 'may be granted' indicating discretion. The Supreme Court had granted relief in T.S.Das case by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, which cannot be applied by the High Court as a precedent. The court held that the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order was contrary to the Pension Regulations, as Special Pension is not a vested right and discretion must be exercised judiciously in deserving cases. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal’s order dated 31.10.2023 was set aside, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Special Pension under Para 164 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 - Discretionary nature - Special pension or gratuity may be granted at the discretion of the President to individuals who are not transferred to the reserve and are discharged in large numbers pursuant to government policy of reducing strength or reorganisation - The power is discretionary and not a vested right, to be exercised judiciously in exceptional cases - Respondent discharged after 11 years and 69 days of Colour Service without being transferred to Reserve - Armed Forces Tribunal granted Special Pension; High Court held that Special Pension is not a matter of right and cannot be claimed as such, especially where the discharge was not in large numbers as per the regulation - Reliance on T.S.Das case under Article 142 not applicable - Order of Tribunal set aside (Paras 6-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a discharged soldier who had served only 11 years and 7 months of Colour Service and was not transferred to Reserve, is entitled to Special Pension under Para 164 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, as a matter of right
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 31.10.2023 in O.A. No. 133 of 2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai Bench, was set aside. The respondent was held not entitled to Special Pension as a matter of right. No costs awarded.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Special Pension under Para 164 of Pension Regulations for the Army
- 1961 is discretionary
- not a vested right
- it is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances
- individuals not transferred to Reserve and discharged in large numbers pursuant to government policy may be considered for Special Pension
- Tribunal's order granting Special Pension set aside
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 167
WP No. 28980 of 2024 and WMP Nos. 31634 & 31636 of 2024
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:1040
Mr. Sakthivel AR (Senior Panel Counsel for Petitioners), Mr. M.K. Sikdar (for Respondent)
The Union of India, The Chief of Army Staff, The Officer-in-Charge (ASC Records South), The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting Special Pension to an ex-serviceman.
Remedy Sought
Union of India sought to quash the Tribunal's order dated 31.10.2023 granting Special Pension to the respondent.
Filing Reason
The Union of India contended that the respondent was not eligible for Special Pension as per the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, and that the Tribunal's order was contrary to the Regulations.
Previous Decisions
Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai Bench, allowed O.A. No. 133 of 2022 and granted Special Pension to the respondent on 31.10.2023.
Issues
Whether a discharged soldier who had not completed 15 years of qualifying service and had not been transferred to Reserve is entitled to Special Pension under Para 164 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, as a matter of right.
Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal's order granting Special Pension was in accordance with the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondent was not eligible for Reservist Pension due to lack of qualifying service; Special Pension is a discretionary power and cannot be claimed as a right; the respondent was not transferred to the Reserve; the Tribunal's order was contrary to Pension Regulations.
Respondent argued that he was eligible for Special Pension as he was not afforded the opportunity to serve in the Reserve; reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in T.S.Das case; persons not transferred to Reserve are eligible for Special Pension.
Ratio Decidendi
Special pension under Para 164 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 is a discretionary grant by the President and not a vested right; it is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where individuals are not transferred to Reserve and are discharged in large numbers pursuant to government policy of reducing strength or reorganisation; an individual discharged from service cannot claim Special Pension as a matter of right; the Supreme Court's order in T.S.Das case under Article 142 cannot be treated as a precedent for all cases.
Judgment Excerpts
Special pension or gratuity may be granted, at the discretion of the President, to individuals who are not transferred to the reserve and are discharged in large number in pursuance of Government's policy...
The nature of Special Pension and the scope of Para 164 cannot be construed as an absolute right to an individual.
This Special Pension, which is a special provision, being granted to an individual in certain exceptional circumstances.
Procedural History
Respondent enrolled in Indian Army on 02.03.1964; discharged on 31.10.1975 after 11 years and 69 days of Colour Service without being transferred to Reserve; filed O.A. No. 133 of 2022 before Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai Bench; Tribunal granted Special Pension on 31.10.2023; Union of India filed writ petition under Article 226 before Madras High Court; High Court allowed writ, set aside Tribunal order.
Acts & Sections
- Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I): Regulation 132, Regulation 155, Regulation 156, Regulation 164
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 142
