AZAD SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Relevant facts leading to the filing of the review petition by the Union of India were taken note of in the order dated 20.3.2009. We reproduce the relevant portion thereof : "Vide common judgment dated 03.04.2008, as many as five writ petitions were decided which included Writ Petition No. 11028/2006. This writ petition was allowed holding that the petitioner would be entitled to pro rata, pension who had rendered service of little more than fifteen years but less than twenty years of service which is minimum qualification service prescribed under the Regulation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, Lt Cdr. Azad Singh joined the Indian Navy as the Commissioned Naval Officer in the rank of Sub Lieutenant. Therefore, entire service rendered by him was in the Officer category. In the same judgment, the petitioner, Lt. Cdr. G.S. Beniwal, in W.P. (C) No. 2314/2005, working only in the Officer category who had rendered less than 20 years of service is denied pension on the ground that there is no provision for pro rata pension in the case of officers. Other three cases were that of those officers who had joined initially as sailors and were commissioned as officers after serving for some time as sailors. In this Review Petition filed by the Government, the aforesaid anomaly is pointed out. It is argued that the case of Lt. Cdr. Azad Singh is par with Lt. Cdr. G.S. Beniwal in all respects. Therefore, on the basis of reasoning given in the writ petition filed by the Lt. Cdr, G.S. Beniwal who was denied pro rata pension this petition was dismissed. Submission is that since it was dealt with other petitions and under the wrong impression the Lt. Cdr. Azad Singh had joined Indian Navy as Sailor, relief has been given to him. Submission of the review petitioner to this extent' appears to be correct However, learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent in this review petition) submits that against the judgment in Lt. Cdr. G.S. Beniwal denying him the benefit of the pro-rata pension, Special Leave Petition NO. 16341/2008 is preferred on the ground that even an officer would be entitled to pro-rata pension as per Regulation 23 of the Pension Regulations. He has drawn our attention to orders dated 01.08.2008 passed in Special Leave Petition whereby taking note of this contention, notice has been issued in the said SLP. In view of the aforesaid position, when the judgment in the case of Lt. Cdr. G.S. Beniwal is under appeal before the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to await the decision in the aforesaid SLP."

(2.) It is clear from the above that the writ petition of the original petitioner was allowed holding that he would be entitled to pro-rata pension for his services, which he had rendered for little more than 15 years but less than 20 years, which is the minimum qualifying service prescribed under the regulations. By the aforesaid common judgment, however, the petition filed by Lt. Cdr. G.S. Beniwal was dismissed, who had also rendered less than 20 years of service, on the ground that there was no provision for pro-rata pension in the case of officers. This anomaly pointed out by the respondent/review petitioner was taken note of in our order dated 20.3.2009.

(3.) It was the admitted case of the parties that case of Lt. Cdr. Ajad Singh is at par with Lt. Cd. G.S. Beniwal in all respects. On that basis, it was pleaded that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in allowing the writ petition filed by Lt. Cdr. Ajad Singh, inasmuch as, that on the basis of reasoning given in the writ petition filed by Lt. Cdr. Beniwal who was denied pro-rata pension, the petitioner of Lt. Cdr. Ajad Singh also should have met the same fate.