SULTAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.1996, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant in the matter relating to the pensionary benefits for the service rendered by him in the Army was rejected on the ground of laches alone.

(2.) The appellant came with the case that he was initially enrolled with the Rajputana Rifles of Army on 7.3.1942 and deployed in Eastern Sector during World War-II and was discharged on 20.9.1946 on account of demoblisation after the war was over. He was then re-enrolled in Rajputana Rifles on 31.7.1948 and deployed in Jammu & Kashmir and again discharged from service on 30.11.1954 on being rendered surplus to the Army Establishment. It appears that in the year 1986, the petitioner Trade a demand for special pension. On such demand being made, a reply dated 29.8.1986 was sent to him by the Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt. under the signature of the Record Officer for OIC Records and the contents of this letter dated 29.8.1986, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, are reproduced as under:

(3.) It appears that further correspondence transpired between the petitioner and the respondents and as a part of this correspondence a letter dated 18.3.1994 sent by the petitioner to the Officer-in-Charge, Records, of Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt. with reference to the Officer-in-Charge, Records of Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt., letters dated 2.11.1993 shows that the petitioner claimed to be entitled for grant of special pension in accordance with Regulations 164 to 167 of the pension Regulations of the Army Part I as he had been discharged being surplus due to the reduction in strength of Establishment of Army. A copy of this letter has been placed on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Rajputana Rifles sent another letters dated 16.7.1994 to the petitioner with reference to his letter dated 30.6.1994 in which it was held out that minimum of 15 years of service was necessary for service pension and whereas he had rendered the service of 6 years and 4 months only, he was not entitled to service pension. It was further mentioned in this letter that if the petitioner wants the old age pension or any other financial aid, he may approach concerned District Office of Sainik Beard and further that at the time of discharge, he had already been paid the service gratuity of a sum of Rs. 316/- and 11 annas in advance. The petitioner then sent notice, to the respondents through his advocate, dated 19.8.1994. This legal notice was replied by the Office of the Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad on 6.10.1994, calling upon the Rajputana Rifles to furnish the information/particulars about the petitioner as mentioned at Item No. 1 to 4 of this letter and copy of this reply dated 6.10.1994 was also endorsed to the petitioner. The Accounts Officer (Pensions), Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad then sent a letter dated 1.3.1995 to the Officer-in-Charge of the Rajputana Rifles to intimate the present position of the case,. Thereafter, a letter dated 12.4.1995 was sent by Mr. Shyam Singh, Advocate to the Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt., under the instructions of his more than one clients including the present petitioner-Sultan Singh. This letter dated 12.4.1995 was replied by the Rajputana Rifles vide its letter dated 7.5.1995 in which the present position about each of the cases mentioned in the letter dated 12.4.1995 was replied at Item No. (a) to (h) of this letter. At Item No. (c) of this letter, the position was made known about the petitioner's case and it was mentioned that under Rule 164 of Pension Regulations Part-1, 1961, the individual can be considered for grant of special pension or gratuity at the discretion of President. In the instant case the individual was paid a sum of Rs. 316.11 annas as service gratuity on his discharge from service after rendering 11 years 37 days service. Therefore, the individual cannot be considered for grant of special pension. The individual may be apprised accordingly. This letter was replied on behalf of the petitioner through Mr. Shyam Singh, Advocate vide letter dated 12.5.1995 and the same was replied again by the Senior Records Officer of the Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt., vide his letter dated 3.7.1995 in which it was reiterated that Sheet roll, enrolment form and other connected documents of the individual have already been destroyed during 1980 as the retention period of their documents from the date of discharge of the individual was already over and this Office was, therefore, unable to take any further action in the matter as the case has been referred after 40 years from the date of discharge; the case may, therefore, be treated as closed as far as this office is concerned. Mr. Shyam Singh, Advocate then sent a letter dated 15.7.1995 to the respondents and thereafter the present petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court on 16.8.1995. On 28.5.1995, the notices were issued to the respondents to show cause s to why the petition be not admitted. In response to the notices issued by this Court, a reply to the writ petition seeking to traverse the claim of the petitioner and contesting the same on facts and grounds stated in the reply dated 4.1.1996 was filed. To this reply dated 4.1.1996, a rejoinder dated 16.1.1996 was filed by the petitioner.