LAWS(DLH)-1998-9-109

MADAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On September 25, 1998
MADAN LAL Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fact that the respondents held Court Martial against the petitioner and that the punishment of dismissal was passed is not in dispute. The petitioner claimed pension for the service rendered by him. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Shambhu Prasad v. Union of Mitt and Another, 55 (1994) DLT 194 wherein this Court had held that "when there is no order by the Court Martial directing the stoppage of pension of Non Commissioned Officers would be pension to commissioned under Regulation 113(a)". Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. K.K.L.D. Azad, (1995)4 Scale 711 = (1995) 5 S.L.R. 225. The decision of this Court referred to above is no longer good law and therefore, the petitioner would not entitled to any pension unless there is an order by the President granting pension.

(2.) There are two Regulations which are relevant in the Regulations framed by the Army. The first is. Regulation 16(a) which deals with the payment of pension to commissioned officers & that Regulation 16(a) reads as under: When an officer who has to his credit the minimum period of qualifying service required to earn a pension, is cashiered or dismissed or removed from the service, his/her pension, may, at the discretion of the President, be either forfeited or be granted at a rate not exceeding that for which he/she would have otherwise qualified, had he/she retired on the same date.

(3.) The other one applicable to the non-commissioned officers is. Regulation 113(a). Regulation 113(a) reads as under: 113(a) An individual who is dismissed under the provisions of the Army Act, is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service. In exceptional cases, however, he may at the discretion of the President be granted service pension or gratuity at the rate not exceeding that for which he would have otherwise qualified had he been discharged on the same date.