SUKHRAM PAL Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the petitioner qualify for the grant of pension ? This is the short question that arise for consideration in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner joined the Indian Army as a 'Boy' on July 29, 1949. At the expiry. of two years, he was transferred for man's service and mustered as a 'Gunner' on July 29, 1951. On Sept. 8, 1959, the petitioner was discharged from the army service at his own request. That after on Aug. 29, 1962, he was enrolled in the Defence Security Corps for a period of five years. On completion of his term he was discharged on Aug. 28, 1967. The petitioner claims that his service from July 29, 1949 to July 28, 1951 should be taken into consideration for the computation of his pension. The respondents rely on Rule 122 of the pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I) to contend that the service as a boy is not admissible for determining the claim for grant of pension. The representations etc. submitted by the petitioner having been rejected, he has approached this Court for the grant of pension and for the quashing of the orders dated May 15, 1985 (Annexure P-1), Dec. 10. 1988 (Annexure P-4) and July 23, 1988 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner claims that if his service from July 29, 1949 is taken into consideration he has rendered a total service of 15 years and 42 days. The respondents maintain that this service cannot be taken into consideration and as such he has rendered a total service of 13 years and 42 days only. On the basis of Rule 132 it is claimed that the petitioner is not entitled to pension as he had not completed 15 years qualifying service. Rule 122 inter alia provides as under:-

(3.) Mr. I.S. Balhara, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such an interpretation of the rule would make the provision of Rule 122 as ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution. Even though no such contention had been raised in the petition, I have considered the matter and find that the contention is without any merit. Period of service prior to attaining the requisite age for enrollment in the army viz. 17 years has been specifically excluded under Rule 122. The rule in a nutshell lays down that pension shall be admissible only in respect of the service mentioned therein. Any service rendered prior to attaining the age of 17 years is not considered as qualifying for pension. A person below the age of 17 years cannot be said to be capable of performing all the duties which a person who has attained at the requisite age can perform. In fact, the rule notices the vital difference between the boy and the man. The rule excludes the boy service from the service which qualifies for pension. Such a provision is neither unfair nor arbitrary. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.