MAHESH ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is clamouring for pension and respondents are denying it to him for shortfall of 254 days in his qualifying service under the relevant rules. He wants this shortfall to be condoned or his previous service rendered in Navy to be counted towards his qualifying service.

(2.) Petitioner first joined Navy on 2.3.1956. He was discharged from there on 5.6.1957 after 1 year 163 days for professional unsuitability. He was later enrolled in the Army (Corps of Signals) on 25.6.1957 for 20 years combined colour and reserved service. He, however, failed to indicate the service rendered by him in the Navy in the enrollment form. Meanwhile, while he was serving in the Army, he was selected for a contract service in Defence Services of Zambia. He claims that he was sponsored and selected by Government of India through Army Headquarters and to fulfil the international commitments after thorough screening and tough competition and that the whole process in this regard was carried out and completed by the Army. He relies upon the Defence Ministry's letter dated 4.2.1997 for this and asserts that it was because of this that he was transferred to Pension Establishment and discharged on 13.10.1971 under Army Rule 13(1)(i)(b) and sent to Zambia on the same date after having completed 14 years and 111 days service. His grievance is that he thereafter asked for his pensionary benefits and made several representations to respondents in this regard but in vain. He was later constrained to file CW No.3429/98 which was disposed of on 3.8.1999 whereby respondents were directed to take a decision on his representation which they eventually rejected by order dated 22.11.1999 on the ground that ha was discharged on compassionate grounds at his own request and that his service in the Navy could not be counted as he had failed to declare it and even elected to count his past service towards the pensionary benefits and gratuity in his Enrollment Form.

(3.) Petitioner has filed this petition now to challenge this and is asking for either reckoning of his service rendered in the Navy towards his qualifying service or for condoning the shortfall of 254 days to entitle him for grant of pensionary benefits.