Indian Navy cannot go back from its promise on 10+10 case

The principle of estoppel in India is a rule of evidence incorporated in Section 115 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The section reads as follows:

“When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe such a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

images (5)

The Indian Navy has recruited many young persons and even those who were young boys below the age of 18 years, into the Navy luring them with high promises. When these persons joined the Navy they were put to very hard training and service at meager Salary & allowances. Since large number of personnel were recruited, they did not get timely promotions as were available to others who had joined before them. Most of these personnel were dis-satisfied and opted to not to further sign the contract for another active service of 5 years to become eligible for Normal Service Pension. Even if they dont sign further, as per contract already held with them, they were to be kept as Reservist for 10 years and such an impression was given during entire period of their service as the same terms were lying in their service document through out. But at the end of the period of active engagement, they were not kept in Reserve by forcing them to sign further for 5 years active service. The Govt of India, Ministry of Defence issued a letter on 3rd July, 1976 making a policy to not to keep the Reservist any more. In this way the Reservist Pension was also denied to these young men who fought the War of 1971.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine. Like all equitable remedies, it is discretionary, in contrast to the common law absolute right like right to damages for breach of contract. The doctrine has been variously called ‘promissory estoppel’, ‘equitable estoppel’, ‘quasi estoppel’ and ‘new estoppel’. It is a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and though commonly named ‘promissory estoppel’, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel.

MiG-29-KUB-Indian-Navy-Fighter-Aircraft-Carrier-Kuznetzsov-Russia-01-www.aame.in

Armed Forces Tribunal at Chennai in one of the case No. OA 83 of 2012 granted Reservist Pension to 3 persons of the Navy having signed for 10+10 years of service with the Navy. i.e. 10 years active service and 10 years reservist service. It is hard pressing and un-believable that the Indian Navy has appealed in the Supreme Court of India against the verdict of the AFT Chennai. Navy and Govt of India do not want to give Reservist Pension by making many lame excuses. The Appeal of the Navy is still in the highest court of the country. Lets see, if the ex- sailors who fought 1971 war get the benefit of Promissory Estopple or not.

The true principle of promissory estoppel is where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it. It is not necessary, in order to attract the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel that the promisee acting in reliance of the promise, should suffer any detriment. The only thing necessary is that the promisee should have altered his position in reliance of the promise.
In conclusion, it can be said that if the Government of India or of any State in India makes a promise to any person and the promise is not inconsistent with the law of the land and is not against public interest, then afterwards it cannot refuse to abide by its promise. The Supreme Court of India has said that acting on the assurance or representations is enough and consequent detriment, damage or prejudice caused is not to be proved. It is also immaterial whether such representation was wholly or partially responsible for such alteration in the position. The Supreme Court has rightly observed that the concept of detriment now is not merely monetary loss but whether it appears unjust. It is inequitable that the promisor should be allowed to resile from the assurance or representation having regard to what the promisee has done or refrained from doing in reliance on the assurance or representation. Hence, one can rely on the lawful promise of the Government of India and can safely act on the same because the law of the land is there to protect the citizens.

YOU MAY READ MORE MATERIAL ON PROMISSORY ESTOPPLE BY CLICK OF MOUSE HERE

IN CASE OF ANY DOUBT OR NEEDING ASSISTANCE, LEAVE A REPLY BELOW

 

About the author

Advocateji.Com publishes problems of public & provides free advice in 24 hours on its web-site at New Delhi

9 Comments

  • vipin singh says:

    Dear Sir,
    My father Mr Attar singh has served indian navy for 10 yrs and was on duty in 1971 war but not getting any pension.Can he join this case in supreme court .please guide.

    View Comment
  • Mohan.R. I am reservist non-pensioner.The GOI and Indian Navy aware of damage to people and even though executed and cut corners on all benifits on reservist sailor. Wrong is Wrong and punished and doubly punished if for any number of appeal to dis-prove and fail.Boys entry reservist sailors,Families,Children’s most of them washed away due to the game played on prove -disprove for the reservist pension and benifits by the way of abusive and Mafia action as of now AFT , SC wake up the IN/GOI and shall be the last go. Appreciate maintaining the full of patience and only await AFT and SC to action the recommended.

    View Comment
  • Suraj popat dhanedhar says:

    Mere pita ne 1968 se 1979 tak army mei service ki hei.par unhe kisi bhi tarah k8 pension nahi mili.

    View Comment
  • Mark Dias says:

    Dear sir,

    My father served in the Indian Navy for 10 years 1966 to 1976 during the 1971 war his ship was in active action he was also awarded the WESTERN STAR MEDAL for war service, 25th INDEPENDENCE MEDAL is my father entitled to any service benefits like PENSION,MEDICAL AT MILITARY HOSPITAL OR CANTEEN etc. Thank you.

    View Comment
  • Bhola singh says:

    Sir I have served we’d. 6-04-1974 to 30-04-1984 and was discharged in low medical cat 20 disability but I have not applied for discharge and applied for further extension. But navy refused for ext

    View Comment
  • Bhola singh says:

    Please advise ME

    View Comment
  • Mohan rao indian says:

    DEAR ALL, I AM ALSO ONE AMONG 10 LONG YEARS SERVED FOR INDIAN NAVY AND RELEASED. WE ALL JOINED AT THE AGE OF 14 – 16 YEARS AS A BOYS ENTRY IN INDIAN NAVY. WE ALL FACING A BLACK OUT / DIS-ORIENTED.MANY OF US INCLUDING ME PUT LIGHT ON AVAILABLE EX-SERVICEMAN SITE AND AT FACE-BOOK. IT IS SHOCKING HOW MANY COULD NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THROUGH / FIGHT THE CASE THROUGH AFT, SC AND NO MORE LIVING AS WELL THE FAMILY AND DEPENDENT ON SERIOUS SUFFERING OR NO MORE.STATISTIC GIVE HOW MANY DIGIT. SOME OF THEM COME UP ASK FOR ADVISE WHAT WE READ THROUGH. TOTAL NEGLIGENCE WILL THEY NOT BE PUNISHED ?

    View Comment
  • Mohan rao indian says:

    DEAR ALL, MANY EX.SERVICEMAN ASSOCIATIONS TOP AGENDA POINTS ARE ONLY INITIATION OF PENSION FOR INITIAL SERVICE 10 LONG YEARS SERVED AND RELEASED SAILORS.

    FINAL APPROACH TO RECONSIDER THROUGH SUPREME COURT FOR PENSION IMPLEMENTATION. WORST SCENARIO IS PENSION NOT REACHED TO THE RELEASED SAILOR, FAMILY AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN AFFECTED.

    THIS BEING SENSITIVE ISSUE HOPE THE AUTHORITY OF INDIAN NAVY/ MOD / GOI SHALL CLOSE OUT THE SUPREME COURT GUIDED IMPLEMENTATION OF PENSION TO INITIAL AGREEMENT OF 10 LONG YEARS SERVED AND RELEASED SAILORS / FAMILIES/ DEPENDENT CHILDREN WITHOUT ANY DELAY.

    View Comment
  • Mohan rao indian says:

    DEAR ALL, I AM ALSO A RELEASED SAILOR ON COMPLETION OF 10 LONG YEARS INDIAN NAVAL SERVICE AND DO NOT RECEIVE MY PENSION AND BENEFITS. WHAT WILL BE THE WORST SCENARIO IF FAILED TO PAY PENSION. WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR THE WORST SCENARIO.

    WE CANNOT GIFT THEM OR GIVE UP. WE ALL LEFT AT THE AGE OF 14-16 BY SACRIFICING VERY HARD TO LIST OUT AND SERVED FOR THIS LAND ON SENSITIVE APPOINTMENTS.

    WE THE INITIAL 10 LONG YEARS SERVED AND RELEASED APPROACHED AS THOROUGH GENTLEMAN TO INDIAN NAVY IT DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE FOOL OR MAD AND WE AWAIT FOR PASS OR FAIL TO RECEIVE OUR RIGHTFUL PENSION AS GUIDED BY SUPREME COURT AND DO NOT WANT TO WASTE TIME WITH WEAK TEAM.

    View Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *