LAWS(SC)-2006-5-23

UNION OF INDIA Vs. BASHIR AHMED

Decided On May 02, 2006
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
BASHIR AHMED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the legality of orders passed by a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants and the review application in respect of the said order. The High Court by the impugned judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal upheld the view of learned Single Judge holding that the respondent is entitled to pension.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent was enrolled as a Sepoy on 6-1-1969. On 1-7-1976 respondent made a declaration in writing to undergo reserve service liability of two years after discharge from service.

(3.) The request of the respondent for discharge from Army service on compassionate grounds was accepted and he was discharged and his name was struck out from the strength on 6-9-1978. Thus he had rendered service for 9 years 7 months and 27 days in the Army which included some over stay leave. With effect from 6-9-1980 the respondent ceased to have any reserve liability. As such, according to the appellants, the respondent did not qualify for any pension in terms of the applicable regulations. On 21-2-2000 respondent filed a writ petition for a direction to the appellants to grant pension. Counter affidavit was filed in June, 2000. Learned Single Judge who disposed of the writ petition by order dated 28-2-2001 proceeded on the basis that no counter affidavit had been filed. Therefore, the assertion of the appellant that he had rendered 15 years of service including reserve service was accepted on this ground alone it was held that the respondent was entitled to pension and other benefits. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by present appellants taking a positive stand that a counter affidavit had in fact been filed, the question of the respondent rendering 15 years of service did not arise as he was appointed in January, 1969 and had been discharged in 1978 and the last two years service related to reserve service. He was not entitled to any pension because he had not completed the requisite period of service. The Division Bench referred to the certificate of service of the respondent and held that the same indicated 15 years of reserved service and, therefore, he was entitled to pension. An application for review was filed, which was rejected.