ZALIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled as a Sepoy on August 8, 1940. He retired from service on July 21, 1955. He claims that two months' annual leave was due to him at the time of his retirement. As a result, he should be deemed to have retired on September 20, 1955. On this basis, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pension with all arrears.

(2.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim on the ground that he had served only for a period of 14 years and 348 days. Since he had not completed 15 years of service, he is not eligible for the grant of pensionary benefits. It has also been pointed out that the watch and ward personnel are not eligible "for regular terms of engagement....". Consequently, they are not entitled to the benefits admissible to the regular members of the Indian Armed Forces. It has also been stated that the petition is highly belated as it has been filed after a lapse of over 38 years from the date of discharge from service.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner had served for 14 years and 348 days. His averment that he was entitled to the grant of two months' annual leave at the time of his retirement having not been denied, it can be presumed that he had actually served till September 1955. In this situation, he will be deemed to have completed 15 years of service. Even otherwise, under the provisions of Regulation 125 of the Pension Regulations and the circular letter dated October 5, 1989, a copy of which is at Annexure P-1 with the writ petition, there is a provision for condonation of deficiency in service upto six months. The petitioner's claim in accordance with the provisions of the regulation and the circular letter has not been considered. Consequently, the plea that the petitioner is not eligible for the grant of pension, merely because there was deficiency of 17 days in completing the prescribed period of 15 years cannot be sustained. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in Banta Singh v. Union of India and others, 1994 4 SCT 12 has already negatived a similar objection.