RAM SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer which is made in this petition is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner from the date of his discharge from military service with interest.

(2.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on October 15, 1963. During his service career spanning over 10 years and 258 days, the petitioner had earned more than four red-ink entries. As he had incurred more than four red-ink entries he was held to be a habitual offender and a show-cause notice was issued to him directing him to show cause why he should not be discharged from service. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice. After receipt of the aforesaid reply, the same was considered and the petitioner was interviewed by the Commandant, School of Artillery. Thereafter, an order was passed by the respondent discharging the petitioner from service being unsuitable for military service in terms of the provisions of Army Rule 13-III(v) with effect from June 29, 1974. After the aforesaid discharge, the petitioner was also paid his terminal dues including service and death-cum- retirement gratuity. The petitioner was satisfied with the aforesaid payment and did not also claim for payment of any pension for long 25 years after the date of his discharge from service. After expiry of about 25 years, the petitioner raked up an issue that he is entitled to payment of pension which should be full pension or in any case, on pro-rata basis. In the rejoinder-affidavit the contention raised is that the discharge of the petitioner is illegal as the provisions of the Army Order and Army Rules 13, 17 and 22 were not properly and validly complied with at the time of issuance of order of discharge and, therefore, the aforesaid discharge is illegal. However, no such prayer is made in the writ petition nor the petition was amended. The writ petition has been filed only with the prayer for grant of pension to the petitioner.

(3.) As there is no prayer in the writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the order of discharge which was passed more than 25 years ago we are not inclined to enter into that controversy at all more so, at this highly belated stage. The only issue which is being considered and was argued at length in this petition is whether despite the aforesaid order of discharge the petitioner is entitled to grant of any pension in the light of his service rendered for 10 years and 258 days. Accordingly, we take notice of the said submission while disposing of this writ petition.