SURJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on November 29, 1963. In March, 1982, he was promoted as a Havaldar with effect from June 1, 1981. On December 19, 1982, the petitioner was discharged from the Army on compassionate grounds. After his retirement, the petitioner was said his pension on the assumption that he was holding the rank of a Naik. The petitioner represented. Having failed to get the requisite relief, he filed the present writ petition in the year 1992. He prays that the respondents be directed to pay him the pension in the rank of a Havaldar.

(2.) The respondents admit that the petitioner had been promoted as a Havaldar with effect from June 1, 1988. However, it is alleged that the promotion was wrongly granted to the petitioner. It has been pointed out that the promotion rules had been notified on October 3, 1980. According to these rules, a person who had earned more than one red ink entry, was not entitled to be promoted to the rank of a Havaldar. In the case of the petitioner, red ink entries had been recorded on January 7, 1978. Accordingly, the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted. The mistake having been noticed, the promotion order was cancelled on June 28, 1982 vide Part II Order No. 130. A copy of this order was permitted to be produced on January 12, 1996. It is on record as Mark 'B' It has been further stated that an inadvertent mistake had been made while preparing the discharge book of the petitioner, wherein he had been described as a Havaldar. The correct position was clarified vide letter dated October 5, 1989. In the written statement it was mentioned that a copy of the order had been produced. In fart, it had not been. However, it was subsequently produced on January 12, 1996. It is on record as Mark A'. The respondents maintain that the order promoting the petitioner to the rank of Havaldar having been cancelled, the pensionary benefits have been correctly granted to him. It is, consequently, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs.

(3.) While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner filed civil misc. application No. 2180 of 1996. Along with this application, the petitioner produced a photo copy of the "testimonial for civil employment" issued to him by the Commanding Officer of the Unit on July 31, 1982. According to the petitioner, the testimonial showed that "even after the alleged date of cancellation of Part II order dated 28th June, 1982 (which was produced by the respondents on the last date of hearing i.e. January 12,1996 as is evident from photostat copy of certificate being annexed with the affidavit", the petitioner's rank had been mentioned as 'Hav.' by the Commanding Officer. It was further stated that the original certificate will be produced before the Court at the time of hearing. Along with the application, a photo-copy of the Certificate was produced. It was prayed that permission be granted to place the affidavit along with the 'annexure' on record. The case had then come up for hearing on January 31, 1996. The affidavit was allowed to be placed on record and the learned counsel for the respondents wasdirected to produce the record. Permission to file a reply to the additional affidavit was also given. On the next date of hearing, Mr. Pipat, learned counsel for the respondents produced the copy of the testimonial which was on the record of the respondents. On examination of the record, it was found that the petitioner had been described as a Naik in the opening line of the testimonial Learned Counsel for the respondents had also stated that the petitioner had tempered with the document and produced a forged copy before this Court. At this stage, Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner had produced the original certificate. On a perusal of this document, it appeared that an eraser had been used and the word "Hav." had been interpolated in the original document. It was further noticed that certain additions had been made in hand at Sr.No. 6 in the certificate produced by the petitioner which did not exist on the copy retained by the respondents on their file. The case was accordingly adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain instructions from the petitioner. It has finally come up for hearing today.