ROSHAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Roshan Kumar Sharma, petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing the order dated 5.6.1998, Annexure P-1 to the petition, passed by the respondents. Vide this order, the respondents denied the benefit of pension to the petitioner for the reason that he does not have requisite qualifying service to his credit, for receiving such benefit.

(2.) Under Regulation 79(1)(i) of Navy Pension Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation), there is legislative mandate to exclude the service rendered by a person below the age of 17 years from the total service, towards qualifying service for recurring (reckoning ?) the prescribed qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits. This implied prohibition is the very foundation of the case of the respondents pleaded in response to the claim of the petitioner, before this Court.

(3.) In order to examine the merit of this controversy, reference to basic facts would be necessary. The petitioner joined the Indian Navy on 14.12.1959 as a 'boy'. He claims to have taken oath of allegiance on 15.12.1959 and was discharged from service on 28th Feb., 1975. According to the petitioner, he has rendered total service of 15 years, 2 months and 13 days, while the prescribed qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits is 15 years. Having service in excess of the qualifying service the petitioner has staked his claim for claiming pensionary benefits. It appears from the record that the petitioner did not press his claim in this regard for quite some time but after the pronouncement of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Anuj Kumar Dey and another Vs. Union of India and others, 1997(1) RSJ 113 : 1997(1) SCT 412 (SC) , he pressed his claim in the year 1996 and after rejection thereof, served a notice upon the respondents through his counsel on 29.7.1997. Referring to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of 1997(1) RSJ 113, he sent a reminder to the notice, which was obviously not replied to. Thus, the petitioner was compelled to file the writ petition before this Court being C.W.P. No. 16494 of 1997, in which a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to provide copy of the order of rejection or appropriate order passed by them on the notice of demand served upon them by the petitioner. Resultantly, Annexure P/5 was served upon the petitioner. The concluding paragraph of the impugned order, Annexure P/5 reads as under:-