MAJOR G S SODHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two Criminal Miscellaneous petition Nos. 8905 of 1990 and 491 of 1991, the petitioners are Major g. S. Sodhi and Lt. Col. S. K. Duggal respectively. They were tried by court-martial and ultimately were removed from service. Both of them had filed Writ Petition (Cri. ) Nos. 478 of 1989 and 525 of 1988 respectively and they were dismissed by a common judgment of ours dated 30/11/1990. In these two criminal miscellaneous petitions the common prayer is for ordering instantaneous release of the petitioners' provident fund, gratuity and pension.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the pensionary benefits which they have earned and their removal from service does not in any manner disentitle them from having these benefits. On behalf of the respondent Union of India it is submitted that the pensionary benefits in respect of those who are dismissed from service, cannot be claimed as a matter of right as these benefits are at the discretion of the President of India and are granted purely on compassionate grounds. It is also submitted that the gratuity is regulated by Army Regulations 2-A and 4 and that Regulation 3 lays down that the full rate of pension or gratuity provided in these Regulations shall not be granted unless the service rendered has been satisfactory and if the service rendered has not been satisfactory, the competent authority may make such reduction in the amount of pension or gratuity as it thinks proper.

(3.) The two petitioners herein have put in number of years of service Major G. S. Sodhi has put in about 17 1/2 years of service and was also awarded some medals for his meritorious service. Likewise, Lt. Col. S. K. Duggal, the other petitioner has rendered about 21 years of service without any blemish. Therefore their services up to the date of punishment have been satisfactory. However, we do not propose to examine the other provisions of the Army Act or Rules or Regulations in view of the fact that this court on two earlier occasions granted similar relief to the officers who were court-martialled and removed from service. In Lt. Col. (T. S. ) Hal-bans Singh Sandhu v. Union of India , a bench of three judges of this court passed an order in favour of the army officer who was cashiered, holding that he was entitled to be paid the entire pension and gratuity under the rules. In passing such an order, this court took into consideration the fact that no other penalty forfeiting the pensionary benefits was passed. Therefore he cannot be deprived of his pensionary benefits by applying any of the Regulations. It was held as under: