C.S.DINESH BABU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugned the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for benefits of pension considering his 17 years of services in the Armed Forces; for reason of his being declared a deserter. The petitioner having joined the Indian Army in 1960, while serving in Bihar and Orissa Sub Area, applied for discharge during January 1977, on extreme compassionate grounds. Though the same was recommended by his Officer in Command, the Army Head Quarters returned the same for resubmission in August 1977. The petitioner then applied for annual leave and proceeded home and then did not re-join duty. The petitioner was then declared as deserter by the Court of Inquiry convened, and he was dismissed from service with effect from 15-10-1980.

(2.) THE petitioner then applied for pension in 1999, which application was rejected by Annexure A6 dated 18-01-1999. Annexure A6 order found the petitioner dis-entitled for pension for reason of his having been dismissed under Section 20(3) of the Army Act for reason of being a deserter, on 15-10-1980. That order was challenged earlier before this Court in O.P.No.34267/2000, which was rejected by judgment dated 13-07-2007 produced as Annexure A11. The petitioner's claim for being granted pension was considered elaborately and it was noticed by the learned Single Judge that in the counter affidavit preferred by the official respondents, documents were produced to evidence the fact that the discharge claimed by the petitioner on compassionate grounds was by reason of his desire to proceed to the middle east for taking up employment there. Having considered the fact that the petitioner was dismissed from service way back in 1980 for reason of his having been declared as a deserter, it was held that the rejection of the grant of pension was perfectly on valid grounds.

(3.) THE petitioner sought for such relief on exceptional circumstances, which has been rejected by Annexure A12 dated 23-04-2010. The petitioner was again before Armed Forces Tribunal challenging the said order, which was rejected by the Tribunal. We are afraid the petitioner cannot agitate issues which were considered and decided in the earlier round of litigation by Annexure A11. Merely because liberty was reserved to enable the petitioner to seek indulgence by way of an amended regulation that cannot by itself revive any claim which has already been settled by the decision in Annexure A11.