Ic 29547 L Bobby Joseph vs Union Of India
- Neutral2019 INSC 1139
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an officer has been formally promoted by competent authority to a higher rank by written order, that promotion constitutes an entitlement to pension at that higher rank, and the fact that the order was subsequently acknowledged as issued by mistake does not vitiate the officer's pension entitlement, provided the order itself has never been withdrawn.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
to the rank of Lt. Colonel (TS) to the Appellant. By
observing that the Appellant did not complete 21 years of
reckonable service which was required for grant of pension
to the Lt. Colonel, as per the Army Order dated
20.03.1990, the Respondents held that the Appellant was
not entitled for payment of pension applicable to the Lt.
Colonel (TS). The Military Secretary Branch, M3-8A
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army)
South Block, New Delhi was of the opinion that the
Appellant fell short of the requisite 21 years by a period of
30 days.
4. Challenging the proceedings dated 30.04.2015, the
Appellant filed O.A. No.110 of 2015 before the Armed
2 Forces Tribunal. The Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the
O.A., dissatisfied with which, the Appellant has filed the
above Appeal.
5. The Tribunal accepted the submissions made on
behalf of the Respondents that to be placed in the rank of
Lt. Colonel (TS), a person should have 21 years of
reckonable service. In case of Short Service
Commissioned Officers who were granted Permanent
Commission, the date of the Permanent Commission shall
be taken into account for the purpose of promotion and
seniority. Considering that the Appellant was granted
permanent Commission w.e.f. 15.06.1974 and seniority
from 12.08.1970, his reckonable service would be 20 years
11 months. In such view of the matter, the Tribunal
concluded that the Appellant was not entitled to the relief
claimed.
6. After retirement of the Appellant, an order for
payment of pension was issued on 29.07.1991. His service
for the payment of pension was shown to have been 22
years 1 month and 1 day. He was granted pension in the
rank of Major. The Appellant has placed before us an order
3 dated 15.10.1991 by which the competent authority
approved the promotion of officers of 1970 to the
substantive rank of Lt. Colonel by time scale. The officers
whose names were found in the list annexed to the said
order were directed to wear the badges of the rank of Lt.
Colonel (TS). The name of the Appellant is shown at Serial
No.11 of the list that was annexed to the order dated
15.10.1991.
7. Having been promoted to the rank of Lt. Colonel, the
Appellant is entitled to payment of pension in the rank of
Lt. Colonel (TS). In response to our query about the order
dated 15.10.1991, the learned Additional Solicitor General,
on instructions submitted that it was issued due to a
mistake. She fairly submitted that the said order has not
been withdrawn. The reliance placed on the Army orders
to consider the reckonable service for the purpose of
promotion/seniority as Major is of no avail to the
Respondents in view of the order dated 15.10.1991. The
Appellant cannot be denied payment of pension applicable
to the rank of Lt. Colonel (TS) on the ground that he fell
short of the reckonable service of 21 years. The Appellant
4 retired in the year 1991 and has been made to run from
pillar to post to get his rightful pension. We deem it
appropriate that apart from his entitlement to the pension
applicable to the post of Lt. Colonel (TS), he is also entitled
to be compensated for the avoidable litigation to which he
was unnecessarily dragged into.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow the Appeal
with costs, assessed at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) which shall be payable to the Appellant within a
period of four weeks.
...............................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…...........................J. [HEMANT GUPTA] New Delhi, October 04, 2019
5
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free