PRAHLAD KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayer :

(2.) Brief resume of the facts is that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on July 20, 1968 and was attested thereto on July 7, 1969. The term of engagement of the petitioner with the Air Force was to be 15 years regular and 6 years reserve service subject to the willingness of the petitioner for further extension of the term. The age of the petitioner at the time he joined the service was 16 years and 133 days. On being asked the petitioner gave his unwillingness for further extension of his service on Nov. 10, 1981 and hence he was retired from service with effect from July 31, 1983 i.e. on fulfillment of conditions of enrollment and on completion of his regular service of 15 years. Along with other papers for retirement, the petitioner submitted his pension papers to his Unit 28 P & S Unit, AP (Accounting Unit Wing A.F.) which were sent by the Unit to the Air Force Record Office. The Record Office did not point out any irregularity in his retirement or his eligibility for the pensionary benefits and a certificate of discharge was issued to the petitioner. When the petitioner was not given any pension he approached the authorities. The Air Force Record Office New Delhi told the petitioner vide communication dated Sept. 2, 1983 that the services rendered by the petitioner were non-qualifying for the purpose of being eligible for pension and as such the pension could not be granted to him. The petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 3 that he could not have been retired unless he completed his terms of engagement so as to be eligible for pensionary benefits. The respondent No. 3 in turn communicated audit objections about payment of 120 days encashment of leave to the petitioner on rendering non-qualifying service of 14 years 133 days. The petitioner was also informed that no condonation of deficiency was possible.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and carefully scanned the material on record. It was canvassed that the petitioner fulfilled his terms of engagement and completed 15 years regular service. Since all other similarly situated persons were allowed benefits of pension on completion of 15 years regular service, the denial of same to the petitioner on the ground of his age not being 17 years at the time of enrollment is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner having rendered the services have earned all pecuniary benefits, including pension and the age at the time of enrollment is totally irrelevant for the purpose of his entitlement for the pension. Para iii(a) (ii) of Defence Service Pension Regulations, Part I, 1961 excluding any period of service before reaching the age of 17 years for the purpose of computing qualifying service for pension or gratuity is per se violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.