PARMJIT SINGH NAYYAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits in his favour by condoning the short fall in his qualifying service period. The facts giving rise to the petition may be summarized as under:

(2.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Navy in the year 1977. He was in due course promoted as Master Chief Air Artificer, 2nd class. In August, 1991, the petitioner was tried and dismissed from naval service on being found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Navy Act, 1957. Thirteen years later he appears to have written to the naval authorities for grant of pensionary benefits. A legal notice was also issued to the respondents demanding release of such benefits. The respondents, however, ignored the said request, aggrieved whereof the petitioner has approached this court with the present writ petition seeking a mandamus for the grant of the said benefits after condoning the short fall in the qualifying service period required for earning pension.

(3.) The respondents have field a counter affidavit in which it is inter alia pointed out that the petitioner has rendered a total service of 13 years 11 months 29 days up to the date of his dismissal. This period, according to the respondents, includes the period rendered by him as Artificer apprentice. The respondents version is that the petitioner having been dismissed from service after a Summary Court Martial is not eligible for grant of any pension. Reliance in support of that contention is placed by them on Regulation 69 of the Navy Pension Regulation, 1964.