LAWS(DLH)-2000-3-101

CHERA BALWAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 29, 2000
CHERA BALWAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was recruited as Artificer Apprentice (Under-trainee) on 2/08/1979 in the Indian Navy and promoted to ERA-5, the first rank in the Artificer cadre on 6/08/1983 after completion of 4 years of Artificer Apprentice training period.He was promoted to the rank of CHERA (Chief engine Room Artificer) w.e.f.26.5.1992. He claims that during period he acquired certain technical qualificationsand inspite of acquisition of these higher qualifications, he was not promoted in Navy.To make his career better in the civil services suitable to his qualification he askedfor premature retirement. His request was acceded to by the respondents andpetitioner was prematurely released at his own request on 28.2.94 for taking up acivil employment. As on the date of his release he had completed 10 years 6 months26days service excluding Apprentice training period of 4 years and 14 years 6months and 26 days service if the Apprentice training period is included. He was notgiven any pension. In the circumstances he sent demand notice dated 24.7.96. Whenit was not replied to, petitioner filed this present petition in which he claims that hemay be paid and granted all pensionary benefits w.e.f., 1.3.1994 and also arrearsalong with interest thereon.

(2.) There is no dispute that the Apprentice Training period is now countable towardsqualifying service for pension. This is the established position in law as settled by theApex Court in the case of Anuj Kumar Dey and another Vs. Union of india andanother (1997) 1 SCC 366 . This is even admitted by the respondents in theircounter-affidavit. Thus 4 years period spent by the petitioner as Artificer Apprenticeis counted and the total service rendered by him comes to 14 years 6 months and 26days. Both the parties agree that this is the service rendered by the petitioner. Thequestion which is to be decided is as to whether on rendering this service petitioneris entitled to pension.

(3.) The respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that since the minimumservice required to earn pension is 15 years and as service rendered by thepetitioner is less than 15 years, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. This isspecified in Regulation 78 of Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. Petitioner alsodoes not dispute that the qualifying service for pension is 15 years. However, hesubmits that as the service rendered by the petitioner is 14 years 6 months and 26days and since fraction of the year is more than six months, it should be treated ascomplete one year and in this way total service rendered by him be treated as 15years. In this manner, petitioner becomes entitled to pension. For this purpose,petitioner relies upon the judgment of Bombay High Court decided on 4th and 6/03/1998 in the case entitled Nirvair Singh Vs. Union of india and Others. Bythis common judgment, a batch of writ petitions was decided. In this judgment,Division Bench of Bombay High Court has taken note of the controversy prevailing inthe year 1990, namely, whether the period spent by such Naval Officers as ArtificerApprentice would be taken as training period only or whether it would be included forthe purpose of pensionary benefits. The respondents at that time were taking theview that these officials were not entitled to get benefit of training period for computingthe qualifying period of service for getting pension and the Supreme Court in thecase of Anuj Kumar Dey (Supra) conclusively held that the view of the respondentswas wrong and this period was to be counted for computing the qualifying period ofservice for getting pension. It is further observed in this judgment that even after thecounting of the period of Artificer Apprentice certain employees had still not completed15 years of service. Such persons who were petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitionshad requested the respondents that they be permitted to complete their service asper Circular dated 3.7.1976 issued by the respondents so that they can qualify forpensionary benefits but their request was not accepted by the respondents bystaling that they should opt for re-engagement for a further period of 5 years but thiswas not accepted by the petitioners. The judgment thereafter proceeds in the followingmanner: