Case Note & Summary
The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Union of India challenging the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which granted special pension to Corporal M.A. Inamdar. The Respondent had completed 15 years of service, including 9 years of active service and 6 years of reserved service, and sought pension based on Regulation 144 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961. The Tribunal determined that the Respondent was entitled to special pension as he was not transferred to the reserve and was discharged under government policy. The Petitioners argued that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous and contrary to statutory provisions. The court examined the Tribunal's reliance on precedents, including T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India, which confirmed similar entitlements for sailors discharged under comparable circumstances. The court noted that the Respondent's discharge was recorded as completion of regular engagement and that he did not opt for discharge, thus satisfying the conditions for special pension. The court also addressed the issue of delay, stating that the Respondent's claim for pension constituted a continuing cause of action. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Writ Petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision to grant special pension.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Pension Rights - Entitlement to Special Pension - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, Section 14 - The Tribunal held that the Respondent was entitled to special pension based on completed service and not being transferred to reserve, which was supported by Regulation 144 of the Pension Regulations. The court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision as the Respondent met the criteria for special pension. Held that the Impugned Judgment deserved no interference (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Respondent is entitled to special pension under Regulation 144 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961.
Final Decision
The Writ Petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to grant special pension to the Respondent.
Law Points
- Pension rights
- Special pension eligibility
- Discretionary powers of the President
- Continuing cause of action
- Promissory estoppel
