KUTTAN PILLAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration in this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the service rendered by a member of the Indian Army in the Lok Sahayak Sena, constitutes service in the indian Army for the purpose of computation of pension.

(2.) THE petitioner served in the Artillery Regiment of the indian Army from 5th May 1942 to 14th January 1947 (4 years and 254 days), in the Lok Sahayak Sena as Instructor from 12th May, 1955 to 12th October 1964 (9 years and 234 days) and in the Defence Security Corps (D. S. C.) from 17th March 1965 to 7th May 1970 (5 years and 57 days ). THE total service rendered by him is 19 years and 180 days, of which 9 years and 234 days were spent in serving in the Lok Sahayak Sena. In order to be entitled to receive pension under Army pension Regulations, a soldier has to serve a minimum of 15 years. THE respondents, who are the Union of India, Adjutant General of the Army headquarters, New Delhi, Senior Record Officer, Cannanore; and Director of defence Security Corps have denied to the petitioner pension on the ground that the service rendered in the Lok Sahayak Sena cannot be counted towards pension for the reason that such service was not the service in the Indian Army. If the service of 9 years and 234 days in the Lok Sahayak Sena is excluded, the petitioner's service falls much below the requisite 15 years of service.

(3.) BUT, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the definition of 'superior officer' in clause (d) of S. 2 of the Lok Sahayak sena Act. 'superior officer' means any officer, junior commissioned officer, warrant officer or non-commissioned officer of the regular army or of the territorial army. The petitioner fits into this description. BUT, the question is whether by virtue of being a superior officer of the Lok Sahayak Sena, he becomes a member of the Indian Army. The petitioner while he was enrolled and worked in the Lok Sahayak Sena was subject to the same discipline such as wearing of uniforms. He was chosen because he was a member of the Indian Army. BUT, in the very nature of things, a person who is appointed to train volunteers has to be from the Indian Army or from the territorial army. This fact by itself does not make the petitioner a soldier in the service of the question Army. He was appointed in the Lok Sahayak Sena, after his service with the Army was terminated. He served the Lok Sahayak Sena and not the Army.