BHAGWANI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the unsuccessful writ petitioner who has since and now represented by his widow Bhagwani Devi who has been impleaded as an appellant vide order dated 23.1.2004.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant-Lal Chand was enrolled in the Army on 18.7.1940 and was discharged from military service on 21.2.1954 as his services were no longer required being surplus to the establishment. He thereafter submitted several documents before the authorities claiming his right to pension. His claim was, however, rejected though certain amounts towards gratuity were paid to him. The appellant continued to make requests for the grant of service pension including one vide letter dated 31.5.1978, Annexure P-2, to which the authorities replied that his claim was untenable as he had not put in the requisite 15 years qualifying service. The appellant thereupon submitted another representation claiming that as per instructions dated 30th October, 1987, Annexure P-6, Armed Forces Personnel were entitled to pensionary benefits on discharge from the Army service as being surplus. Having failed in getting any relief from the authorities, the appellant filed a civil writ petition in this Court basing his claim on Annexure P-6. In the reply filed by the respondents, they reiterated the ground that as the appellant had not put in 15 years service, he was not entitled to any pension and as the appellant had retired from service in the year 1954, he was in any case not entitled to the payment of pension under the instructions dated 30.10.1987, Annexure P-6 as they could not be retrospectively applied. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 12.1.2001 held that as the appellant had retired prior to the issuance of the instructions, Annexure P-6 which could not be applied retrospectively, no benefit could be given to the appellant under those instructions. The plea of the appellant that his case was covered by Regulation 198 of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 was also rejected with the observation that this Regulation was applicable only to such army personnel who had been discharged on account of having been rendered invalid for service. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal at the instance of Lal Chand.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a new argument before us. He has referred to the grounds of appeal and has pointed out that the case of the appellant was covered by Regulations 164 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and as such, the appellant was entitled to all pensionary benefits. We find, however, this is a completely new case put up by the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal and there is no basis in the pleadings in respect of the facts that are required to be proved in a case covered by Regulation 164 ibid. We have nevertheless examined the argument on merits. We reproduce Regulation 164 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 hereunder :-