Union Of India vs Abhiram Verma on 30 September, 2021
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Union Of India vs Abhiram Verma on 30 September, 2021
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 2020 Union of India and another …Appellants Versus Abhiram Verma …Respondent JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 9.2.2018 passed by the Learned Armed Forces
Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘Tribunal’) in T.A. No. 25/2017(SWP No. 454 of 2008), by which the
learned Tribunal has disposed of the said transfer application by setting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jatinder Kaur
aside para 2 of letter dated 31.01.2007 to the extent it denied
Date: 2021.09.30
16:35:06 IST
Reason:
terminal/pensionary benefits to the respondent herein – original applicant
1
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) and directed the appellants –
original respondents to process his claim for terminal/pensionary
benefits taking his qualifying service as 15 years as regards “late
entrant” in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations and to
release the same together with arrears, the department – Union of India
and another have preferred the present statutory appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
That the respondent herein commissioned in the Indian Army
(Armed Medical Corps) as a Short Service Commission Officer on
27.03.1992 for a period of five years at the age of 33 years and 10
months. He voluntarily applied for Permanent Commission on 7.8.1997.
He was granted Permanent Commission at the age of 39 years and 2
months on 28.01.1998. Respondent became a Graded Specialist on
1.6.1994 and thereafter he became a Classified Specialist on 1.6.1999.
By letter/application dated 15.04.2000, the respondent applied for
resignation on the ground of lack of promotional prospects. At this
stage, it is required to be noted that his actual date of superannuation at
56 years of age was 31.05.2014. The application for resignation came
to be rejected by the DG, Medical Services (Army) vide communication
dated 4.9.2000. That thereafter the respondent filed a statutory
complaint on 24.03.2001 against the rejection of his resignation, the
2
same was rejected by the Under Secretary, Government of India on
14.03.2002. That thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition before
the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir being SWP No. 1573/2001 against
the rejection of his complaint by the Under Secretary, Government of
India. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the High Court vide
order dated 11.10.2006 quashing the order of the Under Secretary which
rejected the respondent’s resignation and directed the Army to consider
the case of resignation afresh. That thereafter the respondent’s
resignation came to be accepted vide order/communication dated
31.01.2007, however, it was stated that he was not entitled to any
terminal benefits except for encashment of leave (the denial of the
terminal benefits was the subject matter before the Armed Forces
Tribunal). The name of the respondent was struck off from the Army
Medical Corps vide movement order dated 22.04.2007, with effect from
23.04.2007.
2.1 That thereafter the respondent preferred the writ petition before the
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir being SWP No. 454/2008 for grant of
gratuity and pension, which subsequently came to be transferred to the
Armed Forces Tribunal as TA No. 25/2017. That by the impugned
judgment and order dated 9.2.2018, the learned Tribunal has disposed
of the said transfer application directing the appellants to process the
3
respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking qualifying
service as 15 years as a “late entrant” under Regulation 15 of the
Pension Regulations. That leave to appeal has also been dismissed by
the learned Tribunal vide order dated 25.03.2019.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned Tribunal directing the appellants to
process the respondent’s claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking
qualifying service as 15 years as a “late entrant” under Regulation 15 of
the Pension Regulation, the Union of India and another have preferred
the present appeal.
3. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India
has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Vikas Singh, learned
Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3.1 Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has vehemently submitted that in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has
materially erred in directing the appellants to consider the respondent’s
claim for terminal/pensionary benefits taking qualifying service as 15
years as a “late entrant” under Regulation 15 of the Pension
Regulations.
3.2 It is vehemently submitted that as such the learned Tribunal has
wrongly observed that the respondent submitted the request for
4
“voluntary retirement”. It is submitted that as such it was not a case of
“voluntary retirement”, but it was a case of “resignation” by the
respondent on the ground of lack of promotional prospects.
3.3 It is submitted that even it was not the case on behalf of the
respondent before the learned Tribunal that he submitted the application
for “voluntary retirement”. Reliance is placed upon some of the
averments in the petition before the High Court/learned Tribunal in which
he has categorically stated that he tendered the “resignation” for want of
promotional avenues.
3.4 It is submitted that since it was the case of “voluntary resignation
from service”, the respondent shall not be entitled to the benefit as “late
entrant” under Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations.
3.5 It is submitted that even otherwise at the relevant time the
respondent did not complete the qualifying service for the purpose of
“voluntary retirement”. It is submitted that thus the date on which the
respondent submitted the application for resignation on 15.04.2000, he
was not even eligible for premature retirement. It is submitted that
therefore it was a case of “voluntary resignation” and not “voluntary
retirement”.
3.6 It is submitted that admittedly when the respondent tendered his
resignation on 15.04.2000, he had only rendered service for 15 years
5
and 27 days. It is submitted that had the respondent not voluntarily
resigned and retired at the age of superannuation, (i.e, 56 years for a Lt.
Col.) on 31.05.2014, he would have rendered 22 years 2 months and 2
days of service. It is submitted that therefore when the respondent
tendered the resignation, he did not complete the minimum qualifying
service as per Regulation 25(a), i.e., 20 years. It is submitted that
therefore the respondent took the shelter of Regulation 15 as a “late
entrant”. It is submitted that the minimum qualifying service for being
eligible for retiring pension is 20 years under Regulation 25(a). It is
submitted that it is only in the case of compulsory retirement on attaining
the age of superannuation where it is impossible for the officer to
complete 20 years due to the prescribed age limit that a concession of 5
years is granted to such “late entrants” that can earn a retiring person
even after completion of minimum 15 years of service.
3.7 It is submitted that therefore as it was a case of “voluntary
resignation” and not a case of “voluntary retirement/retirement”. The
respondent cannot be said to be “late entrant” and therefore shall not be
entitled to the benefit under Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations.
3.8 It is further submitted that in the present case the learned Armed
Forces Tribunal has erred in treating the present case of “voluntary
resignation” as one of “voluntary retirement”. It is submitted that there is
6
a vast difference between the “voluntary resignation” and “voluntary
retirement”. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case
of BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma.
Reported in (2020) 3 SCC 346 (paragraphs 13 & 14).
3.9 It is further submitted by Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG
appearing on behalf of the appellants that assuming for the time being
that the respondent applied for “voluntary retirement”, in that case also,
as on 15.04.2000 even he did not complete the qualifying service for the
purpose of premature retirement.
3.10 Now so far as the case on behalf of the respondent, so stated in
the counter affidavit on the reliance placed upon Regulation 19(h) and
19(j) of the Pension Regulations of the Army, 2008 to contend that the
period of service in a central autonomous body as well as period of ante-
date of commission granted to an officer in respect of possession of a
Post-Graduate Qualification shall also count towards reckonable
pensionable service is concerned, it is submitted that the said
Regulations, 2008 shall not be applicable as the respondent has
resigned in the year 2000 and even his name was struck off from the
Army Medical Corps in the year 2007 and therefore Pension Regulations
1961 shall be applicable. It is submitted that, as such, such a plea was
7
not taken before filing of the counter affidavit before this Court and rightly
not taken as the Pension Regulations 2008 shall not be applicable.
3.11 It is further submitted that even otherwise considering the
applicable rules, namely, Premature Retirement/Resignation from
Service of AMC Officers dated 26.03.1998, if a person has resigned on
the ground of lack of career/promotional prospects the same cannot be a
reason for acceptance of premature retirement/resignation and the
officers who are permitted to resign are not entitled to terminal benefits,
however, they are eligible to avail encashment of accumulated annual
leave. It is submitted that therefore also not only the respondent was
ineligible to take the benefit of Pension Regulation 15, but also was
ineligible for any terminal benefits as per the aforesaid
Regulations/Rules.
3.12 It is further submitted by Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG that
even the observations made by the learned Tribunal that the authority
took seven years to decide on the application submitted by the
respondent is factually incorrect. It is submitted that the respondent
tendered the resignation on 15.04.2000 and the same came to be
rejected by the DG, Medical Services (Army) on 4.9.2000 and even the
respondent filed a statutory complaint against the rejection of the
resignation on 24.03.2001. It is submitted that therefore, as such, there
8
was no delay at all on the part of the authority in deciding the application
for resignation.
3.13. Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decision, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. The present appeal is opposed by Shri Vikas Singh, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of
the case, as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent
shall be entitled to the benefit as “late entrant” under Regulation 15 as
well as the benefit of Regulation 19(h) of Pension Regulations, 2008. It
is submitted that, as such, Regulation 19 of the Pension Regulations,
2008 is pari materia to Pension Regulations, 1961.
4.2 It is submitted that in accordance with Pension Regulations, 2008,
respondent’s pre-commission service as Research Scholar with Gandhi
Medical College, Bhopal (a Government College) and as a Medical
Officer with BHEL, totalling to 6 years 4 months and 6 days should also
be counted towards his total qualifying pensionable service. It is
submitted that thus the respondent’s total qualifying pensionable service
comes to 22 years 11 months and 2 days (15 years 27 days of Army
Service + 6 years 4 months and 6 days of pre-commission service + 1
and half years of ante-date seniority).
9
4.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise the learned Tribunal
treated the respondent’s case as a “late entrant” in the peculiar facts and
circumstances as mentioned in para 4 of the impugned judgment which
read as under:
i) As admitted by the appellants, respondent was granted PC at a
late age of 39 years 2 months, in the organizational interest, to meet the
acute shortage of medical-specialist in the Army prevailing at that point
of time, thereby relaxing the maximum age limit 32 years;
ii) Over a period of time, the medical specialists became surplus in
Army thereby causing acute stagnation in the promotions/career
progression and lack of opportunity to do in-house specialist courses,
which prompted the respondent to seek pre-mature release from the
Army so as to establish his career elsewhere at that young age;
iii) the respondent was 42 years of age when he had applied for the
pre-mature severance on 15.04.2000, which was initially rejected by the
Appellants on the false ground that there was shortage of medical
specialists in the Army; and
iv) the appellants inordinately delayed in accepting respondent’s
request which happened only with the kind indulgence of the J&K High
Court and accordingly by the time respondent was released from the
10
Army, he had already crossed the age of 49 years of age which was too
late to establish his practice or start a new career.
4.4 It is further submitted by Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel
that, as such, Pension Regulations, 2008 shall be applicable. It is
submitted that as held by this Court in the cases of D.S. Nakara v. Union
of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 and K.J.S Buttar v. Union of India, (2011) 11
SCC 429 for the purpose of granting benefit under the new Pension
Rules, the date of retirement is irrelevant, though the revised scheme
would be operative from the date mentioned in the new Pension Rules
but would bring its umbrella even to the pensioners who retired after the
specified date w.e.f. and their pension would be payable accordingly with
effect from the said specific date.
4.5 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Union of
India v. Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava, (1997) 2 SCC 28 (Paras 7, 18 to 20), it is
submitted that as held by this Court in the context of Army, there is no
difference between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement” because in
either case prior permission of the government would be required for an
Army Personnel to leave the service. It is submitted that this Court also
held that the policy letter issued by the Army Headquarter, thereby
denying pension and other terminal benefits to the persons who resigned
11
to the service cannot be given effect to being contrary to the Pension
Regulations which does not have such stipulation.
4.6 It is submitted that even otherwise the respondent had submitted
his application on 15.04.2000 on a printed form prescribed by the
appellants which has both options of “resignation” and “premature
retirement” printed on it. It is submitted that as such the respondent’s
real intention was to seek premature retirement but he was told that
since he had less than 10 years of service at that point of time, as per
para 7 & 13 of the Army HQ Policy dated 26.03.1998, the premature
release before 10 years of service has to be termed as “resignation” and
not as “premature retirement”. It is submitted therefore his application
was treated as one of “resignation” and not as “premature retirement”
due to the aforesaid technical reason, even though the respondent has
no intention to resign and thereby losing his service benefits, if any.
4.7 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the respective
parties at length.
The short question posed for the consideration of this Court is,
whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is
12
entitled to the benefit of Regulation 15 of Pension Regulations, 1961 as
a “late entrant” and therefore entitled to the pensionary benefits?
The incidental question which is posed for the consideration of this
Court is, whether the resignation tendered by the respondent on
15.04.2000 can be said to be a “resignation” or “voluntary retirement”.
5.1 While considering the aforesaid issues, even at the cost of
repetition, few dates and events are required to be considered, which
are as under:
i) the respondent applied for resignation (now according to the
respondent it was a request for voluntary retirement) on the ground of
lack of promotional aspects on 15.04.2000;
ii) the application for resignation came to be rejected by the DG,
Medical Services (Army) on 4.9.2000;
iii) the respondent filed a statutory complaint against the rejection of
his resignation on 24.03.2001;
iv) the respondent’s statutory complaint came to be rejected by the
Under Secretary, Government of India on 14.03.2002;
v) the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir by judgment and order dated
11.10.2006 quashed the order of the Under Secretary who rejected the
13
respondent’s resignation and consequently directed the department to
consider the case of the resignation afresh;
vi) respondent’s resignation came to be accepted in pursuance of the
High Court’s order vide communication/letter dated 31.01.2007,
however, it was stated that the respondent is not entitled to any terminal
benefits except for encashment of leave;
vii) the name of the respondent came to be struck off from the Army
Medical Corps vide Movement Order w.e.f. 23.4.2007;
viii) as per paras 7 & 13 of the Army HQ Policy dated 26.3.1998, the
qualifying service for the purpose of premature retirement was 10 years
of service, otherwise his application has to be termed as “resignation”;
ix) admittedly the respondent did not complete the ten years of
service on 15.04.2000 when he tendered his resignation and therefore
as such was not eligible to apply for “voluntary retirement”;
x) when the respondent tendered application for resignation on
15.04.2000, the respondent rendered service for 15 years and 27 days
only; and
xi) the minimum period of qualifying service actually rendered for
earning retiring pension shall be 20 years as per Regulation 25(a),
however, if an officer is a “late entrant” who, as such, has rendered
14
service at least for 15 years and who has retired on reaching the
prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement with at least 15 years
commissioned service (actual) as per regulation 15.
6. To bring the case within Regulation 15 and get the benefit as a
“late entrant”, it is the case on behalf of the respondent that his
application tendered on 15.04.2000 was not an application for
“resignation”, but it was a request for “voluntary retirement”. The
submission on behalf of the respondent that what was tendered on
15.04.2000 was not an application for “resignation” but it was an
application for “voluntary retirement” has no substance and cannot be
accepted for the following reasons:
i) that the qualifying service for the purpose of “voluntary retirement”
is minimum 10 years’ service. On 15.04.2000, the respondent did not
complete 10 years of service and therefore was not eligible for applying
for “voluntary retirement” and therefore on 15.04.2000 otherwise also he
could not have applied for “voluntary retirement”;
ii) in the application dated 15.04.2000, the cause shown was lack of
promotional aspects. Even the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in its
judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 which was filed by the respondent
specifically noted the submission on behalf of the respondent that the
“petitioner having joined the Commission at a later stage has no chance
15
of promotion to the first selection, i.e., to the rank of Colonel in the Army
Medical Corps. Petitioner moved an application dated 15 th April, 2000
before the respondents’ seeking “resignation” from the army on the
ground of non-availability of promotional prospects and ineligibility to
acquire technical skill”. Even the High Court in its judgment and order
dated 11.10.2006 treated and considered the application submitted by
the respondent dated 15.04.2000 as application for “resignation” and
proceeded on that footing. Even the subsequent petition filed before the
High Court being SWP 454/2008, the respondent never contended that it
was an application for “voluntary retirement”. If we see the averments in
the writ petition all throughout the word used by the respondent is
“resignation”. Therefore, only as an afterthought and to get the benefit of
“late entrant” under Regulation 15, now it is the case on behalf of the
respondent that what was meant by him at that time was praying for
“voluntary retirement” and it was not an application for “resignation”;
iii) even as per the applicable rules for premature
retirement/resignation of AMC Officers dated 26.3.1998, a request of an
officer to seek premature retirement/resignation on the ground of lack of
career prospects shall not be accepted and even if the officers are
permitted to resign, they are not entitled to terminal/pensionary benefits;
and
16
iv) even from para 6 of the written submissions dated 15.09.2021 filed
on behalf of the respondent, it can be seen that the respondent has
accepted that on 15.04.2000 he was not eligible for “voluntary
retirement” and therefore he used the word “resignation” to get out of the
technical reason. Therefore, it can be said that he has admitted that on
15.04.2000 he did not fulfil the criteria for “voluntary retirement” as on
that day he had not completed 10 years of service.
Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, the only conclusion would be
that on 15.04.2000 the respondent tendered “resignation” for lack of
promotional avenues/aspects and it was not a case of “voluntary
retirement”.
7. Even, there is a distinction between the “resignation” and
“voluntary retirement”. A person can resign at any time during his
service, however, an officer cannot ask for premature/voluntary
retirement unless he fulfils the eligibility criteria.
8. This Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between
“resignation” and “voluntary retirement” in the case of Senior Divisional
Manager, LIC v. Shree Lal Meena, reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479, which
has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case of BSES
Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra). In paragraph 22, it is observed and held as
under:
17
“22. The principles in the context of the controversy before us are well
enunciated in the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Cecil Dennis
Solomon [RBI v. Cecil Dennis Solomon, (2004) 9 SCC 461: 2004 SCC
(L&S) 737]. On a similar factual matrix, the employees had resigned
sometime in 1988. The RBI Pension Regulations came in operation in
1990. The employees who had resigned earlier sought applicability of
these Pension Regulations to themselves. The provisions, once again, had
a similar clause of forfeiture of service, on resignation or dismissal or
termination. The relevant observations are as under: (SCC pp. 467-68,
paras 10)
“10. In service jurisprudence, the expressions “superannuation”,
“voluntary retirement”, “compulsory retirement” and “resignation” convey
different connotations. Voluntary retirement and resignation involve
voluntary acts on the part of the employee to leave service. Though
both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. One of the basic
distinctions is that in case of resignation it can be tendered at any time,
but in the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after
rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. Other fundamental
distinction is that in case of the former, normally retiral benefits are
denied but in case of the latter, the same is not denied. In case of the
former, permission or notice is not mandated, while in case of the latter,
permission of the employer concerned is a requisite condition. Though
resignation is a bilateral concept, and becomes effective on acceptance
by the competent authority, yet the general rule can be displaced by
express provisions to the contrary….”
8.1 The law laid down by this Court in the case of Shree Lal Meena
(supra) has been reiterated by this Court in the subsequent decision in
the case of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) and in the subsequent
decision, this Court also considered the observations made in paragraph
26 in Shree Lal Meena (supra) that while pension schemes do form
beneficial legislation in a delegated form, a beneficial construction
cannot run contrary to the express terms of the provisions. It is further
observed that the issue cannot be dealt with on a charity principle.
When the legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain beneficial
18
provisions in the form of Pension Regulations from a particular date and
on particular terms and conditions, aspects which are excluded cannot
be included in it by implication. Therefore, having tendered the
“resignation”, the respondent has to suffer the consequences and now
cannot be permitted to take ‘U’ turn and say that what the respondent
wanted was “premature retirement” and not “resignation”.
9. Now so far as the reliance placed by the respondent on Regulation
19(h) and 19(j) of the Pension Regulations of the Army, 2008 to contend
that a period of service in a central autonomous body as well as period
of ante-date of commission granted to an officer in respect of possession
of a Post-Graduate Qualification shall also be counted for the purpose of
pensionable service, the same cannot be accepted, firstly on the ground
that the same was not raised before the High Court/AFT. Even
otherwise also, the Pension Regulations of the Army, 2008 shall not be
applicable to the case of the respondent as the respondent would be
governed by the Pension Regulations, 1961, which have no pari materia
provisions like Regulation 19(h) and 19(j) of the Pension Regulations of
the Army, 2008. The same has no retrospective applicability. As such,
the respondent had resigned on 15.04.2000 and even his resignation
was accepted on 31.01.2007, much prior to the coming into force of the
Pension Regulations of the Army, 2008.
19
10. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court
in the cases of D.S. Nakara (supra) and K.J.S. Buttar (supra) is
concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on
hand. Similarly, the decision of this Court in the case of Lt. Col. P.S.
Bhargava (supra) shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand
and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the respondent. In the
case before this Court, it was found that the officer completed the
requisite qualifying service which was for the purpose of pensionable
benefits. However, the same was sought to be denied on the ground
that he voluntarily resigned. In the present case, as observed
hereinabove, the minimum qualifying service for the purpose of
pensionable benefits is 20 years as per Regulation 25(a) and if his case
is considered as a “late entrant”, then 15 years as per Regulation 15.
11. In light of the above findings, it is required to be considered
whether the respondent can be said to be a “late entrant” and is entitled
to the benefit of Regulation 15 as a “late entrant” and the pensionable
benefits or not? Regulation 15 reads as under:
“Regulation 15 – Late Entrants
15. For purposes of the regulations in this Chapter, a “late entrant” is
an officer who is retired on reaching the prescribed age limit for
compulsory retirement with at least 15 years commissioned service
(actual) qualifying for pension but whose total qualifying service is less
than twenty years (actual).”20
As per Regulation 15, a “late entrant” is an officer who is retired onreaching the prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement with at least
15 years commissioned service (actual). As the respondent did not
retire on reaching the prescribed age limit for compulsory retirement, the
respondent cannot be said to be a “late entrant”. The purpose and
object seems to be to give 5 years relaxation/grace for qualifying service
for earning a retiring pension. As per Regulation 25(a), the minimum
period of qualifying service actually rendered and required for earning a
retiring pension shall be 20 years. However, if an officer is not able to
complete the minimum period of qualifying service, i.e., 20 years and
before completing 20 years of service he is attaining the age of
superannuation and is retired on reaching the prescribed age limit of
compulsory retirement, but has completed 15 years of qualifying service,
he is considered as a “late entrant” and is entitled to pensionary benefits
by getting 5 years grace period. Therefore, to that extent the same can
be said to be a relaxation/grace of 5 years for getting the benefit of
pensionable benefits provided the case falls within Regulation 15 and an
officer is a “late entrant”. As observed hereinabove, the respondent
cannot be said to be a “late entrant” and therefore not entitled to the
benefit of Regulation 15 and therefore not entitled to the pensionary
benefits.
21
12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Armed Forces Tribunal dated 9.2.2018 in T.A. No. 25/2017
quashing and setting aside para 2 of letter dated 31.01.2007 to the
extent it denied terminal/pensionary benefits to the respondent and
directing the appellants to process the respondent’s claim for
terminal/pensionary benefits taking his qualifying service as 15 years as
regards “late entrant” in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension
Regulations is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the
respondent is not entitled to the terminal/pensionary benefits as a “late
entrant” in terms of Regulation 15 of the Pension Regulations. The
present appeal is allowed accordingly, however, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………..J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2021. [A.S. BOPANNA]
22