MAJOR RAJINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the petition was taken up for final disposal. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner for declaration of the order of termination of petitioner from service without issuing show cause as void abinitio. reinstatement of the petitioner with consequential benefits and direction of payment of pro-rata pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Since the order is of 24/1/1988 and the writ petition was filed only in the year 1998 after a lapse of 10 years relief in respect of reinstatement and challenge to show cause notice is not pressed. Learned counsel however, contends that insofar as the grant of pensionary benefits is concerned, the petitioner cannot be non-suited on the grounds of delay and cannot be deprived of these pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment in the case of Hazara Singh Vs. Chief of Air Staff (Delhi) 1982 (1) SLR 521 to contend that if the power is exercised under Section 18 of the Army Act by the President of India, then exercise of such power cannot deny pensionary benefits to the petitioner. There is no dispute about the fact that the order dated 24/11/1988 has been passed in exercise of power under Section 18. The order is as under :

(2.) Thus learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the direction in the order that the petitioner will not be entitled to terminal benefits from the date on which he is relieved from duty, cannot be sustained in view of Hazara Singh's case (supra). The relevant para from this Judgment is as under :

(3.) Pinki Anand, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. P.D. Yadav, JT 2001 (8) S.C. 617, to contend that such denial of pension is valid in law. However, the said judgment deals with a case where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the officer and in not a case where doctrine of pleasure has been exercised. .The law in respect of a case where doctrine of pleasure has been invoked is crystalised by Division Bench in the case of Hazara Singh (Supra). In view thereof the latter portion of the order dated 24.11.1988 denying the termination benefits to the petitioner cannot be sustained.