Supreme Court granted Special Pension to 10+10 years Naval sailors

The Supreme Court of India has given a judgment in favour of those sailors who had left the Navy after completion of 10 years active service and the Navy had forcibly cancelled their balance 10 years reservist service only to deny them pension.

 

JUST CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING AND YOU WILL GET FULL JUDGMENT    sc-judgement

Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2147 of 2011
T.S. Das and Ors. …..Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Anr. ……Respondents
With
Civil Appeal No.8566 of 2014
J U D G M E N T
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
These appeals emanate from the divergent relief claimed by
the original applicants before the Armed Forces Tribunal
(Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2147 of 2011 and Respondents in
Civil Appeal No. 8566 of 2014), which, however, involve overlapping
points for consideration. Hence, we deem it apposite to dispose of
both these appeals analogously, by this common judgment.
Page 2
2
2. Civil Appeal No. 2147 of 2011 arises from an order passed by
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in Original
Application No. 182 of 2009 dated 4th February, 2010. The Tribunal
has rejected the claim of the applicants therein for grant of a
“Special Pension”. In Civil Appeal No. 8566 of 2014 the decision of
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai, in O.A. No.83
of 2013 dated 22nd April, 2013, is challenged by the Union of India.
In that case, the Tribunal acceded to the claim of the applicants
therein for grant of a “Reservist Pension”.
3. Admittedly, the applicants before the Tribunal in both cases
were appointed as Sailors in the Indian Navy before 1973. The
appointment letter noted that the concerned applicant was engaged
as a Sailor for 10 years active service and 10 years on Fleet Reserve
Services thereafter, if required. The applicants were continued for a
brief period beyond the initial term of 10 years in active
service/engagement and discharged without drafting them to Fleet
Reserve Services. Thus, each applicant was discharged by the
Indian Navy after July, 1976, on completion of their active service
and was paid gratuity. As the Tribunal granted relief to similarly
Page 3
3
placed persons by directing the Authorities to grant Reservist
Pension/Special Pension, even these applicants moved the Tribunal
for a similar relief.
4. The 38 applicants in O.A.No.182/2009 (appellants in
C.A.No.2147/2011) had initially approached the High Court of
Delhi by way of a Civil Writ Petition No.4805/2008, to issue
direction to the competent Authority to grant special pension to
them under Regulation 95 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as “Pension” Regulations). The High Court
vide order dated July 8, 2008 directed the competent Authority to
examine the claim of the said applicants for grant of a special
pension. The competent Authority after examining the matter
rejected the claim of the said applicants vide a speaking order dated
30th September 2008. The competent Authority held that the said
applicants were discharged from service after completion of their
initial engagement and were not drafted to the Fleet Reserve, as
they were not required. That fact was mentioned in the discharge
slips issued to them. The competent Authority also held that
Regulation 95 of the Pension Regulations was inapplicable to the
Page 4
4
said applicants as they were not discharged as a measure of
reducing the strength of the establishment of the Indian Navy or of
any re-organization. Instead, they were discharged after completion
of engagement period in terms of Section 16 of the Navy Act, 1957.
The applicants then approached the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi by way of O.A. No. 182/2009 which,
however, was dismissed on 4th February 2010. The Tribunal held
that the applicants were discharged from service after completion of
10 years period of engagement. They had no right to be drafted on
the Fleet Reserve. Reliance placed by the applicants on Regulation
269 of the Navy Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and
Miscellaneous Regulations, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Conditions of Service Regulations”), was negatived by the Tribunal
on the finding that the said provision is only an enabling provision
and vests discretion in the Authority to draft the concerned Sailor
on Fleet Reserve. The Tribunal held that Regulation 95 was not
applicable to the case of the applicants who were discharged from
service after completion of 10 years of engagement. Accordingly, the
original application filed by the said applicants was dismissed being
Page 5
5
devoid of merit. Against that decision, the appellants in C.A. No.
2147/2011 have approached this Court.
5. In the companion appeal filed by the Union of India being
C.A.No. 8556/2014, the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,
Chennai, however, has allowed the original application filed by the
three applicants. The Tribunal directed the competent Authority to
grant Reservist Pension to the said applicants payable from three
years prior to the filing of the original application i.e. from 29th
October 2009 and to adjust the service gratuity and the
Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity (DCRG) already paid to those
applicants from the arrears. The Tribunal while dealing with the
claim of Reservist Pension held that on expiry of the engagement of
active service, the applicants ought to have been drafted on the
Fleet Reserve Service as per the original engagement of service.
Reliance placed by the Union of India on the other decision of the
Tribunal of Regional Bench of Kochi dealing with similar issue, has
been brushed aside by the Tribunal by invoking the principle of
equitable promissory estoppel. The Tribunal concluded that the
three applicants were entitled for grant of Reservist Pension as per
Page 6
6
Regulation 92 of the Pension Regulations. The Tribunal also
accepted the alternative prayer of the said applicants for grant of
Special Pension as specified in Regulation 95 of the Pension
Regulations on the ground that because of the Government Policy
dated 3rd July 1976 of reducing the strength of establishment or
re-organising any ships or establishments resulting in paying off,
the applicants were not drafted on the Fleet Reserve Service. The
Tribunal, further, noted that the applicants could be given only one
of the above pension and finally concluded that they were entitled
for Reservist Pension.
6. The applicants who had claimed Special Pension as per
Regulation 95 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, contended
that because of the change of Policy vide notification dated 3rd July,
1976, it entailed in discontinuation of the Fleet Reserve Service.
Thus, in terms of Clause (i) of Regulation 95, they were entitled for
a Special Pension.
7. According to the original applicants, they had signed a
contract to serve with the Navy for 10 years in active service and 10
years in Fleet Service. They were under bonafide belief that they
Page 7
7
would be allowed to complete their pensionable service i.e. 10 years
in active service and 10 years in Fleet Reserve. Even the official
document in the shape of service certificate would reinforce this
position. They submit that if they were allowed to complete the term
of service, as mentioned in the certificate of service, they would
have become entitled for Reservist Pension in terms of Regulation
92 of the Pension Regulations. In any case, on account of
re-organisation of the Naval Establishment by abolishing the
establishment of Fleet Reserve, it inevitably resulted in reduction of
the total strength of the Indian Navy w.e.f. 3rd July 1976. That was
the sole reason for not drafting the applicants to the Fleet Reserve
Service. As a result, the applicants in any case were entitled to a
Special Pension under Regulation 95 of the Pension Regulations. In
that, all the Sailors in active service during 3rd July 1976, were
discharged because of the Government Policy, who, otherwise, were
entitled to be transferred to Fleet Reserve Service, as per their initial
term of engagement. Abolition of Fleet Reserve Service in terms of
Government Policy amounts to reduction of strength of
establishment of the Indian Navy or reorganization of establishment
to that extent. Reliance is placed on the exposition in the case of
Page 8
8
D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India1 to contend that pension
payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and
efficient service and, therefore, can be said to be a deferred portion
of the compensation for service rendered. That cannot be denied to
the original applicants on the basis of Government Policy dated 3rd
July 1976. Taking any other view would mean that the said policy is
made applicable retrospectively even to the case of the applicants
who were already in service with assurance that they would remain
in active service for 10 years and 10 years after in Fleet Reserve.
The Government Policy dated 3rd July 1976, if made applicable to
the applicants and similarly placed persons would result in
changing their service conditions to their detriment. That is
impermissible, as expounded in the case of BCPP Mazdoor Sangh
& Anr. vs. NTPC & Ors.2 and Union of India & Ors. vs. Asian
Food Industries3. Section 184-A of the Navy Act, 1957 forbids
1
AIR 1983 SC 130
2
AIR 2008 SC 336
3
(2006) 13 SCC 542.
Page 9
9
giving retrospective effect to a Regulation which prejudicially affects
the interests of any person. It is contended that Regulation 269 of
the Conditions of Service Regulations read with the provisions of
the Pension Regulations make it amply clear that every Sailor who
had served in the Indian Navy before or after the amendment of
Conditions of Service Regulations or coming into force of the
Government Policy w.e.f. 3rd July 1976, was entitled for a pension.
The fact that Government decided to discontinue the Fleet Reserve
Service ought not to impinge upon the salutary rights of the Sailors
in active service to get pension. The applicants have supported the
reason given by the Tribunal, that the principles of equitable
promissory estoppel would apply to the fact situation of the present
case. According to the applicants, the Government has adopted a
pedantic approach in giving narrow interpretation to the expression
“if required” occurring in Regulation 269(1). If that interpretation is
to be accepted, the Regulation would be hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In that, the Government would reserve its
right to keep the Sailors on Reserve Fleet Service, but would leave
no option to the Sailors who would be bound by the contractual
obligation as per the original service conditions to remain on Fleet
Page 10
10
Service for 10 years after completion of 10 years of active service.
The discretion provided to the Government, as per the
interpretation given to the expression “if required” would be hit by
the principle of contra proferentum, as observed in the case of
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs. Brojonath
Ganguly4 in view of unequal bargaining power. The Department
being a Welfare State cannot be heard to adopt such argument as
canvassed with reference to the expression “if required”. The
Government cannot be heard to deny pensionary benefits to the
Sailors who were in active service at the relevant time when the
Government Policy came into force for disbanding the Fleet Reserve
Service. It is one thing to say that the Government has discretion to
discontinue or re-organise its establishment, but that cannot be
done at the cost of the rights of the Sailors, in particular pensionary
benefits. It was argued that on conjoint reading of the provisions of
Service Conditions Regulations and the Regulations for India Fleet
Reserve, it would be amply clear that when the Sailor does not
express his unwillingness to continue after active service of 10
4
(1986) 3 SCC 156
Page 11
11
years it would follow that he has been taken on the Fleet Reserve
Service. In substance, the argument is that the applicants had an
accrued and vested right to get Reservist Pension and that cannot
be taken away much less by an amendment to the Regulations or a
Government Policy to discontinue the Fleet Reserve Service.
Reliance is placed on the decisions in Union of India vs. Asian
Food Industries5, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam vs.
Bachan Singh6 and in Sonia vs. Oriental Insurance Co.7.
Appellant No. 36 (In C.A.No.2147/2011) has additionally submitted
that he was recruited as a direct entry Sailor on 7th February, 1950
and on completion of 10 years of active service was drafted to the
Fleet Reserve for second leg of compulsory 10 years Fleet Reserve.
He was discharged from the Fleet Reserve on 30th March 1967
unilaterally by the respondents. By that time, he had completed
combined 17 years 01 month and 26 days of service. Relying on
5
(2006) 13 SCC 542
6
(2009) 14 SCC 793
7
(2007) 10 SCC 627
Page 12
12
Clause (2) of Regulation 92 of the Pension Regulations, it is
contended that he was discharged from the Reserve Fleet otherwise
than at his own request; and, therefore, was entitled to Reservist
Pension. The fact that he had not made any request for early
discharge has been admitted by the Department in its letter dated
8th May 2014 and yet he has been denied the benefit of Reservist
Pension, unlike extended to Sailors similarly situated.
8.Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the Union of India that the
period of engagement for continuous service of Naval Person in the
Indian Navy including their terms and conditions for continuous
service in the Indian Reserve Fleet and also entitlement for grant of
Reservist Pension is governed by Regulation 268 and 269 of the
Conditions of Service Regulations and also Regulation 92 and 95 of
the Pension Regulations and Regulation 6 of the Indian Fleet
Reserve Regulations. Since the original applicants were enrolled as
Sailors prior to 3rd July 1976, on completion of 10 years of
continuous service, their service could be drafted on Fleet Reserve
Service only if required, for a further period of 10 years in the
Indian Fleet Reserve, as per Regulation 269(1). But, due to
Page 13
13
discontinuation of Fleet Reserve Service w.e.f. 3rd July 1976 the
original applicants were not and could not have been drafted to
Indian Fleet Reserve. The enrollment in the Indian Fleet Reserve is
governed by the Fleet Reserve Act of 1940. It is neither a matter of
right nor automatic. As per Regulation 6 of Indian Fleet Reserve
Regulations the entries in the service certificate relied on by the
original applicants were made at the time of enrollment only to
indicate that a Sailor will serve 10 years active service followed by
10 years Fleet Reserve, if required. Such entry cannot create any
right in favour of the Sailor to be drafted on the Indian Fleet
Reserve. Regulations adverted to by the original applicants was an
enabling provision and not the condition of contract or any promise
made to the Sailor that he will be compulsorily drafted to the Fleet
Reserve. There is no deeming provision in that behalf in any of the
Regulations governing the service conditions of the Sailors.
Majority of the Sailors opted to take discharge after completion of
10 years of active service. Those who volunteered to be drafted to
the Fleet Reserve were considered by the Department on case-tocase
basis subject to fulfilling the requisite requirements therefor.
Only such Sailors who had completed the 10 years of active service
Page 14
14
and 10 years of Fleet Reserve Service, as per the Regulation, were
entitled for minimum pension. The original applicants were not
drafted to the Fleet Reserve due to discontinuation of Fleet Reserve
w.e.f 3rd July 1976. Resultantly, none of the original applicants were
eligible for Reservist Pension. It is contended that this view has
been taken by the Armed Forced Tribunal in Case No.
T.A.492/2009 (Niranjan Chakraborty, Ex-L/TEL No.92171) decided
on 10.02.2010, in O.A.No.84/2010 (Ramachandran Pillai, Ex-SEA I,
No.88568) decided on16.05.2011, in O.A.No.42/2012 (Mangala
Prasad Choubey, Ex-LS,No.94834) decided on 19.06.2013, in
O.A.No.08/2013 (Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificer Association & Ors.)
decided on 22.01.2014, in O.A.No.02/2014 (SS Bansure, Ex-SEA
I,No.84001) decided on 18.06.2014. The decision in the case of
Niranjan Chakraborty has been affirmed by this Court in SLP (C)
No.19790/2001 decided on 13th January 2014. Hence, the issue
stood concluded against the original applicants. The decision of the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Chennai, which is
impugned in the present appeal, therefore, deserves to be
overturned following the dismissal of the appeal by this Court
against the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi in
Page 15
15
T.A. No. 492/2009 dated 10th February 2010. The principle of
equitable promissory estoppel invoked by the Tribunal in the
impugned judgment is inapplicable to the present case, keeping in
mind the express provisions in the extant Regulations regarding the
service conditions of the original applicants. The original applicants
cannot be heard to claim any right to be transferred to the Reserve
Fleet or for that matter being automatically transferred thereat. For,
unless the Sailor is drafted to the Reserve Fleet by an express order
of the Competent Authority the question of entitlement to Reservist
Pension in terms of Regulation 92 would not arise. The plea of
equitable promissory estoppel cannot be pursued as there cannot
be estoppel against law ( Union of India and Another vs. Dr. S.
Baliar Singh8; Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish
Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others9.) Reliance is also placed on the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Roshan Lal Tandon vs.
Union of India10 which has taken the view that the terms and
8
(1998) 2 SCC 208
9
(2006) 2 SCC 482
10
Page 16
16
conditions of service of Government Servants can be unilaterally
altered by the Government and there is no vested or contractual
right of the Government servant. Further, the legal position of a
Government servant is more of a status, than of contract; and the
hallmark of status being a relationship of rights and duties imposed
by the public law and not by agreement of parties. It is further
submitted that the original applicants (respondents in C.A. No.
8556/2014) were given an option to continue in Naval Service for
extended term following the discontinuance of Reserve Service, but
all of them gave unwillingness and hence they were discharged on
completion of period of engagement. Having opted to take discharge,
those applicants in any case cannot claim relief of grant of pension
as per the relevant Rules. With regard to the scope of Regulation 95
of the Pension Regulation, it is submitted that the effect of
Government Policy manifested in the Notification dated 3rd July
1976, was not to reduce the strength of the establishment of the
Indian Navy or for that matter re-organisation of the establishment
as such. It was also not a case of paying off. In that, the
applicants were discharged on completion of their active service. For
AIR 1967 SC 1889
Page 17
17
being a case of paying off, the Sailors whilst in service were required
to be removed/ discharged because of discontinuance or closure of
the Indian Fleet Reserve. Merely because of discontinuation of Fleet
Reserve, persons affected may not become entitled to a Special
Pension. Only if such re-organization results in paying off of any
ships or any establishments, Clause (ii) of Regulation 95 would
come into play. Accordingly, it is submitted that even the relief of
grant of a Special Pension, is devoid of merit.
9.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the concerned
parties at length. It is not in dispute that the applicants before the
Tribunal were engaged as Sailors before 1973. The provisions
concerning commissions, appointment and enrolments is found in
Chapter IV of the Navy Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, of
1957”). Section 9 of the Act of 1957 provides for the eligibilities for
appointment or enrolment in the Indian Navy or Indian Naval
Reserve Forces. The terms and conditions of service of Sailors, as
mentioned in Section 11 of the Act of 1957 are such as may be
prescribed. Sub-Section (2) thereof provides for the term of a Sailor
in the Indian Navy for a period of 10 years in the first instance. That
Page 18
18
was subsequently increased to 15 years. By a further amendment
in 1987, the said term has been increased to 20 years w.e.f.
09.09.1987. Section 12 of Act of 1957 is about the validity of
enrolment as a Sailor. It postulates that the incumbent shall be
deemed to have been duly enrolled and shall not thereafter be
entitled to claim his discharge on the ground of any irregularity or
illegality or any other ground whatsoever. Chapter V of the Act 1957
deals with conditions of service of Officers and Sailors. Section 14
stipulates that Officers and Sailors shall be liable to serve in the
Indian Navy or the Indian Naval Reserve Forces, as the case may be,
until they are discharged, dismissed with disgrace, retired,
permitted to resign, or released. Section 14 to 17 which may have
some bearing on the matter in hand, read thus:
“14. Liability for service of officers and sailors.-(1) Subject to
the provisions of sub-section(4), officers and sailors shall be
liable to serve in the Indian Navy or the Indian Naval Reserve
Forces, as the case may be, until they are duly discharged,
dismissed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign, or
released.
(2) No officer shall be at liberty to resign his office except with
the permission of the Central Government and no sailor shall be
at liberty to resign his post except with the permission of the
prescribed officer.
(3) The acceptance of any resignation shall be a matter within
the discretion of the Central Government or the officer
concerned, as the case may be.
Page 19
19
(4) Officers retired or permitted to resign shall be liable to recall
to naval service in an emergency in accordance with regulations
made under this Act, and on such recall shall be liable to serve
until they have been duly discharged, dismissed, dismissed
with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign, or released.
15. Tenure of service of officers and sailors.-(1) Every officer
and sailor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the regulations
made thereunder-
(a) the Central Government may dismiss or
discharge or retire from the naval service any
officer or sailor;
(b) the Chief of the Naval Staff or any prescribed
officer may dismiss or discharge from the naval
service any sailor.
16. Discharge on expiry of engagement.-Subject to the
provisions of section 18, a sailor shall be entitled to be
discharged at the expiration of the term of service for which he
is engaged unless-
(a) such expiration occurs during active service
in which case he shall be liable to continue to
serve for such further period as may be required
by the Chief of the Naval Staff; or
(b) he is re-enrolled in accordance with the
regulations made under this Act.
17. Provisions as to discharge.-(1) A sailor entitled to be
discharged under section 16 shall be discharged with all
convenient speed and in any case within one month of his
becoming so entitled:
Provided that where a sailor is serving overseas at the time
he becomes entitled to be discharged, he shall be returned to India
for the purpose of being discharged with all convenient speed, and
in any case within three months of his becoming so entitled.
Provided further that where such enrolled person serving
overseas does not desire to return to India, he may be discharged
at the place where he is at the time.
(2) Every sailor discharged shall be entitled to be conveyed free of
cost from any place he may be at the time to any place in India to
Page 20
20
which he may be at the time to any place in India to which he may
desire to go.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding
sub-section, an enrolled person shall remain liable to serve until
he is duly discharged.
(4) Every sailor who is dismissed, discharged, retired, permitted to
resign or released from service shall be furnished by the prescribed
officer with a certificate in the language which is the mother
tongue of such sailor and also in the English language setting
forth-
(a) The authority terminating his service;
(b) the cause for such termination; and
(c) the full period of his service in the Indian
Navy and the Indian Naval Reserve Forces.”
Section 15 provides for the tenure of Officers and Sailors which is
subject to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations made
thereunder. The Regulations regarding conditions of service as
framed under the Act of 1957, are the Naval Ceremonial Conditions
of Services and Miscellaneous Regulations, 1964. Regulations 268
deals with engagements including all Direct Entry Sailors.
Regulation 269 deals with continuous service. Regulation 269 as
applicable at the relevant time when the applicants were appointed
before 1973, as extracted in the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A.
No.492 of 2010, read thus:
“Regulation 269:
Page 21
21
Continuous service. (1) Old [Entrants] Boys, Artificer Apprentices
and Direct Entry sailors may be enrolled for a period calculated to
permit a period of 10 years’ service to be completed from the date
of attaining 17 years of age or from the date of being [ranked] in
the Man’s [rank] on successful completion of initial training,
whichever is later, provided their services are so long required.
Continuous Service sailors of all Branched shall be liable, if
required, for a further 10 years’ service in the Indian Fleet
Reserve, subject to the provisions of the Regulations for the Indian
Fleet Reserve.”
(emphasis supplied)
Regulation 269 as amended reads thus:
“269. Continuous Service.-[(1) Old [Entrants] Boys, Artificer
Apprentices and Direct Entry sailors may be enrolled for a period
calculated to permit a period of 10 years’ service to be completed
from the date of attaining 17 years of age or from the date of being
[ranked] in the Man’s [rank] on successful completion of initial
training, whichever is later, provided their services are so long
required.
Continuous Service sailors of all Branches shall be liable, if
required, for a further 10 years’ service in the Indian Fleet
Reserve, subject to the provisions of the Regulations for the Indian
Fleet Reserve.
[(1A) New Entrants.-(a) Boys, [***] and Direct Entry sailors
may be enrolled for a period calculated to permit a period of 15
years’ service to be completed from the date of enrolment or from
the date of attaining the age of 17 years, whichever is later,
provided their services are so long required.]
[(aa) Artificer Apprentices and Direct Entry (Diploma holders)
Artificers may be enrolled for a period of 26 years to be completed
from the date of enrolment or from the date of attaining the age of
17 years whichever is later, provided their services are so long
required.”]
(b) All new entrants with 15 years’ or 20 years’ initial
engagement, as the case may be, are to sign a declaration that they
shall be liable to resign a declaration that they shall be liable to
Page 22
22
recall to active service after release upto two years in case of
Non-Artificers and three years in case of Artificers”] :
Provided that during the said period they shall not be
required to undergo refresher training or be entitled to any
retaining fee, but when recalled they shall be entitled to normal
pay and allowances:
Provided further that if recalled they shall be liable to serve
for so long as their services are required:
Provided also that sailors released prematurely from service
at their own request shall also be liable to active service upto the
period stated above.
(1B)(a) In case of the existing sailors, their period
of engagement shall be governed by sub-regulation (1),
except that they shall not be transferred to Fleet
Reserve.
(b) The existing Fleet Reservists shall not be
required to undergo refresher training but shall be
entitled to the retraining ree till they are wasted out.
(IC) Persons joining service on or after 3rd July, 1976
shall be deemed the New Entrants.]
(2) No sailor shall be re-enrolled unless he fulfills
the following conditions:-
(a) Out of the three annual assessments
immediately preceding re-enrolment, he must have
had at least two assessments of character and
efficiency not below ‘VG’ and ‘Sat’, respectively.
(b) Must be recommended by his Captain as in all
respects suitable to continue in Service.
(c) Must have been declared medically fit for
satisfactorily carrying out the duties required of him.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page 23
23
Other relevant Regulation dealing with conditions of service of
Sailors, is Regulation 279. It provides for discharge. The same reads
thus:
“279. Discharge “S.N.L.R.”-(1) Discharge S.N.L.R. (Service no
longer required) shall not be considered as a punishment but only
as the appropriate method of dispensing with the services of a
man:
(a) who is surplus to requirements,
(b) whose retention would be to the detriment of the
Service but who has not recently committed a specific
offence for which dismissal would be an appropriate
punishment in addition to any other sentence
awarded.
(c) On whom an adverse report has been forwarded in the
post-enrolment verification report.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (1), if the
retention of any sailor is considered undesirable on grounds of
conduct or character, a report, accompanied by his Service
Documents, shall be forwarded to the Administrative Authority,
with a recommendation that the man be discharged ‘Service No
Longer Required’.
(3) In all cases of recommendations for discharge of sailors as
‘Service No Longer Required’ except those who are to be discharged
as being surplus to requirements, Captains shall establish clearly
the fact that the sailor recommended for discharge has been given
suitable warning and opportunity to improve. Evidence to this
effect shall accompany the recommendation. In exceptional cases,
when in the opinion of the Captain, the retention of a sailor is
clearly undesirable, a recommendation may be forwarded and
discharge may be approved although the sailor has not previously
been warned.
(4) The Administrative Authority, if satisfied that discharge
‘Service No Longer Required’ is appropriate, shall forward the
application to the Chief of the Naval Staff through Captain Naval
Barracks with his recommendation. It is essential. The man’s
Service Documents completed up-to-date shall accompany the
application for discharge.
Page 24
24
(5) Abroad, sailors recommended for discharge ‘Service No
Longer Required’ shall not be sent home until the approval of the
Chief of the Naval Staff for discharge has been received. If in the
interim, the man is transferred to another ship, the Service
document sent with the man shall be annotated to the effect that
an application for his discharge has been made and a copy of the
application shall accompany his papers.”
Indeed, Regulation 279 providing for discharge can be invoked
before the expiration of tenure of service.
10. Besides these Regulations, we shall now advert to the Pension
Regulations framed in exercise of powers conferred by the Act of
1957, known as the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. Regulation
92 deals with Reservist Pension and Gratuity which reads thus:
“92. Reservist pension and gratuity.-(1) A reservist who is
not in receipt of a service pension may be granted, on completion
of the prescribed naval and reserve qualifying service of ten years
each, a reservist pension of rupees eleven per mensem or a
gratuity of rupees nine hundred in lieu of pension.
(2) A reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension and whose
qualifying service is less than the period of engagement but not
less than fifteen years may, on completion of the period of
engagement or on earlier discharge from the reserve otherwise
than at his own request, be granted a reservist pension at rupees
ten per mensem or a gratuity of rupees seven hundred and fifty in
lieu of pension.
(3) Where a reservist elects to receive a gratuity in lieu of pension
under this regulation, the amount of gratuity shall, in no case, be
less than the service gratuity that would have accrued to him
under regulation 89 based on the qualifying service in the Indian
Navy, had he been discharged from the active list.
Page 25
25
Explanation.- The option The option to draw a gratuity in lieu of
pension shall be exercised on discharge from the reserve, and the
option once exercised shall be final; no pension or gratuity shall be
paid until the option has been exercised.”
Regulation 95 deals with Special Pension and Gratuity to Sailors
which reads thus:
“95. Special pensions and gratuity to sailors-When
admissible.-A special pension or gratuity may be granted at the
discretion of the Central Government, to sailors who are not
transferred to the reserve and are discharged in large numbers in
pursuance of Government’s policy-
(i) of reducing the strength of establishment of the Indian Navy; or
(ii) of re-organisation, which results in paying off of any ships or
establishments.”
Regulation 6 of Regulations of the Indian Fleet Reserve, framed
under the Indian Naval Reserve Force (Discipline) Act, 1939 reads
thus:
“6. Claim to join fleet Reserve – No man can claim to
join the fleet reserve as a right.”
Re: Reservist Pension
11. We shall first deal with the question regarding entitlement to
claim Reservist Pension. Sub-Clause (1) of Regulation 92, throws
some light on this aspect. It provides that a “Reservist” who is not
in a receipt of Service Pension, be granted Reservist Pension on
Page 26
26
completion of the prescribed Naval and Reserve Service of 10 years
each. None of the applicants claim that they are entitled for Service
Pension, nor have they been so granted. The eligibility of grant for
Reservist Pension is upon completion of the prescribed Naval and
Reserve qualifying service of 10 years each. It is not in dispute that
each of the applicants completed the prescribed Naval Service of 10
years in the first instance, also known as active service or
engagement. It is also not in dispute that there is no formal order
issued by the Competent Authority to draft the services of the
concerned applicant on the Fleet Reserve Service after completion of
10 years of active service in the first instance.
12. As a matter of fact, the issue under consideration was
the subject matter before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi in T.A. No.492/2009. The Tribunal after
analyzing the relevant provisions observed as follows:
“9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was not
inducted for a Fleet Reserve Service. He has filed a Discharge
Certificate and profile of his service on record and Service
Certificate which does not show that the petitioner was engaged for
a Fleet Reserve Service at all or not. However, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that when he entered into the service at
that time as per rule 10 years of regular service and 10 years of
fleet reserve service and out of that five years service should be
counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. It is true
Page 27
27
at relevant time when petitioner was inducted into service there
was requirement of keeping the incumbent in fleet reserve,
therefore, respondents are bound by the service conditions
prevailing at that time and they must give 5 years benefit of fleet
reserve service. It is true that we would have certainly acceded to
the request but a difficulty arose that Regulation 269 clearly
contemplates that incumbent can be kept for reserve fleet, if
required. This Government policy to keep in fleet reserve was
discontinued in the year 1976. The Regulation 269 clearly
contemplates that incumbent can be kept in fleet reserve, if
required that means this is enabling provision giving liberty to
respondents to keep the incumbent in fleet reserve, it does not
confer any right on the petitioner that he must be necessarily kept
in fleet reserve. This is the discretion of the respondents that if
they required, they keep the man in fleet reserve and if they find
that they do not require the incumbent for fleet reserve, the
incumbent cannot as a matter of right seek writ of mandamus, he
has no statutory right to be kept in fleet reserve. The expression “if
required” makes abundantly clear that discretion is with the
respondents to keep the incumbent in fleet reserve or not. Since
this policy has been discontinued in 1976, henceforth there is no
provision to keep the incumbent in fleet reserve. Petitioner was
discharged in the year 1978. He knew the provision at that time
also that he is not kept in fleet reserve. Therefore, petitioner cannot
get the benefit of 5 years of service out of 10 years of fleet reserve
service so as to complete 15 years of qualifying service for
pension.”
13. This view taken by the Tribunal was challenged before this
Court by way of SLP(Civil) No. 19790/2010 which, however, was
dismissed on 13th January 2014. The said order reads thus:
“Heard.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The
special leave petition is dismissed.
We however make it clear that this order shall not prevent
the petitioner from making an appropriate representation to the
competent authority for grant of special pension in terms of the
Regulation 95 of the Navy (Pension) Regulation, 1964.
Page 28
28
Mr. Mohan Jain, learned ASG submits that in case such a
representation is made, the same shall be examined by the
competent authority and appropriate orders passed in accordance
with law. That statement is recorded.
We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion about
the merits of the claim that the petitioner proposes to make for
payment of special pension. The matter is left entirely to the
competent authority to decide the same in accordance with law. In
case the competent authority takes an adverse view of the matter,
the petitioner shall have the liberty to seek redress against the
same in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. No
costs.”
14. It is justly contended by the Department that after the
aforesaid decision of the Tribunal having been affirmed by this
Court, the opinion of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment to the
contrary may be treated as impliedly overruled. Nevertheless, we
may examine the correctness of the approach of the Tribunal in the
impugned judgment.
15. In absence of an express order of the Competent Authority to
take the applicants on the Fleet Reserve Service, the moot question
is: whether the applicants can be treated as deemed to be in the
Fleet Reserve Service on account of the stipulation in the
appointment letter – that on completion of 10 years of Naval Service
as a Sailor, they may have to remain on Fleet Reserve Service for
another 10 years. That condition in the appointment letter cannot
Page 29
29
be read in isolation. The governing working conditions of Sailors
must be traced to the provisions in the Act of 1957 or the
Regulations framed thereunder concerning service conditions. From
the provisions in the Act of 1957, there is nothing to indicate that
the Sailor after appointment or enrolment is “automatically” entitled
to continue in Fleet Reserve Service after completion of initial active
service period of 10 years. The provisions, however, indicate that on
completion of initial active service of 10 years or enhanced period as
per the amended provisions is entitled to take discharge in
terms of Section 16 of the Act. The applicants assert that none of
the applicants opted for discharge. That, however, does not mean
that they would or in fact have continued to be on the Fleet Reserve
Service after expiration of the term of active service as a Sailor.
There ought to have been an express order issued by the competent
Authority to draft the concerned applicant in the Fleet Reserve
Service. In absence of such an order, on completion of the term of
service of engagement, the concerned sailor would stand
discharged. Concededly, retention on the Fleet Reserve Service is
the prerogative of the employer, to be exercised on case to case
basis. In the present case, however, on account of a policy decision,
Page 30
30
the Fleet Reserve Service was discontinued in terms of notification
dated 3rd July, 1976. The said notification reads thus:
“No.AD/5374/2/76/2214/S/D (N.II),
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 1976.
To,
The chief of the Naval Staff (with 100 spare copies)
Sub.:- CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF SAILORS.
Sir,
I am directed to state that the President is pleased to approve the
following modifications in the conditions of Service of sailors:-
a) Initial Period of Engagement:- Be entrolled for 15 years.
b) Educational Qualification at Entry:- Be raised to
Matriculation or equivalent in the case of Direct Entry sailors of
Seaman and Marine Engineering branches and Bo Entry sailors of
all branches.
c) Ages of Entry:- The age of entry for Boys be revised to
16-18 years and that for Direct Entry sailors to 18-20 years.
d) Compulsory Age of Retirement:- Subject to the
prescribed rules, the age of compulsory retirement for sailors of all
ranks upto and including CPO rank will be 50 years. The
compulsory retirement age of MCPO I/II will remain 55 years.
e) Time Scale Promotion to Leading Rank:- Seaman First
Class and equivalents will be promoted to the Leading rank on
completing of 5 years service in man’s rank subject to passing the
prescribed examination. The date of implementation of this
provision will be promulgated by Naval Headquarters.
f) Transfer to Current Fleet Reserve:- Transfer of sailors into
the Fleet Reserve to be discontinued. The Existing Fleet Reservists
will not be required to undergo refresher training but will be paid
the retaining free till they are wasted out.
g) Recall to Active Service:- (i) All new entrants with 15 years
initial engagement and such of the existing sailors, who re-engage
to complete time for minimum pension, to sign a declaration that
they will be liable to recall to active service, after release upto two
years in case of Non-Artificers and three years in case of Artificers.
During this period they will not be required to undergo refresher
trainings or be entitled to any retraining fee, but when recalled
Page 31
31
they will be entitled to normal pay and allowances. If recalled they
would be liable to serve for so long as their services are required.
(ii) Sailors released prematurely from Service at their own
request will also be liable to recall to active service upto the period
stated above.
h) Regrouping and Remustering of sailors:- Future entrants
(Both Boy and Direct Entry) in Seamen and ME Branches will be
on Group ‘B’ Scale of Pay. Serving sailors in these branches
including Regulating Branch, who are matriculate or equivalents
will also be remustered to Group “B” scale pay with effect from 1st
April, 1976. Those, who attain this qualification later, will also be
remustered to Group ‘B’ scale of pay, as and when they so qualify.
Remustering will invariably be effective from the first of the month
in which it occurs.
2. Administrative instructions, if any, will be issued by the
Naval Headquarters.
3. Appropriate Government Regulations/Orders will be
amended in due course.
4. This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (Def)
vide their u.o. No.452/NA/S of 1976.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(P.S. Ahluwalia)
Under Secretary to the Gov. of India
16. As per this policy, the initial period of engagement was
enhanced to 15 years. At the same time the transfer of Sailors to
Fleet Reserve was discontinued. This is made amply clear in Clause
(f) of the policy. The second part of the same clause pertains to
“Existing Fleet Reservist”, who were to be paid the retaining fee till
they are wasted out.
Page 32
32
17. As noted hitherto, none of the relevant provisions even
remotely suggest that the Sailor is “automatically” transferred to the
Fleet Reserve Service. Whereas, it is expressly provided that on
expiration of the term of service of engagement the Sailor would be
placed on Fleet Reserve Service only if an express order in that
behalf is passed by the Competent Authority to draft him on the
Fleet Reserve and not otherwise. Section 16 of the Act, merely gives
an option to the Sailor to take a discharge after expiration of term of
service of engagement. It is not a deeming provision that if such
option is not exercised by the concerned Sailor, he would be treated
as having been drafted on the Fleet Reserve Service for another 10
years “automatically”.
18. Regulation 269, spells out the conditions of service. It
reinforces the position that the services of a Sailor would be
continued “so long required” or “if required”. The second part of
Clause (1) of that Regulation uses the expression “if required”, for
further 10 years service in the Indian Fleets Reserve, subject to the
provisions of the Regulations for the Indian Fleet Reserve. This view
Page 33
33
taken by the Tribunal (Principal Bench, New Delhi) in T.A. No.492
of 2009 commends to us.
19. As aforesaid, on introducing the new policy on 3rd July, 1976,
the Fleet Reserve was discontinued and instead the Sailors in
service at the relevant time were given an option to continue in
active service for a further term of 5 years. Some of the Sailors
opted to continue till completion of 15 years, who, then became
eligible for “Service Pension” having qualifying service.
20. The quintessence for grant of Reservist Pension, as per
Regulation 92, is completion of the prescribed Naval and Reserve
qualifying service of 10 years “each”. Merely upon completion of 10
years of active service as a Sailor or for that matter continued
beyond that period, but falling short of 15 years or qualifying
Reserve Service, the concerned Sailor cannot claim benefit under
Regulation 92 for grant of Reservist Pension. For, to qualify for the
Reservist Pension, he must be drafted to the Fleet Reserve Service
for a period of 10 years. In terms of Regulation 6 of the Indian Fleet
Reserve Regulations, there can be no claim to join the Fleet Reserve
Page 34
34
as a matter of right. None of the applicants were drafted to the
Fleet Reserve Service after completion of their active service. Hence,
the applicants before the Tribunal, could not have claimed the relief
of Reservist Pension. The Tribunal (Regional Bench, Chennai) in
O.A. No. 83 of 2013, however, granted that relief by invoking
principle of equitable promissory estoppel and legitimate
expectation in favour of the applicants. The Tribunal, in our
opinion, committed manifest error in overlooking the statutory
provisions in the Act of 1957 and the relevant Regulations framed
thereunder, governing the conditions of service of Sailors. The fact
that on completion of 10 years of active service, the Sailor could be
taken on the Fleet Reserve Service for a further period of 10 years
cannot be interpreted to mean that the concerned Sailor had
acquired a legal right to join the Fleet Reserve Service or had de jure
continued on Fleet Reserve Service for a further 10 years after
expiration of the initial term of active service/engagement. There is
no provision either in the Act of 1957 or the Regulations framed
thereunder as pressed into service by the applicants, to suggest
that drafting of such Sailors on Fleet Reserve Service was
“automatic” after expiration of their active service/enrolment period.
Page 35
35
Considering the above, it is not necessary to burden this judgment
with the decisions considered by the Tribunal on the principle of
equitable promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, which
have no application to the fact situation of the present case.
21. The original applicants contend that if the Government Policy
dated 3rd July, 1976 is applied to the serving Sailors, inevitably, will
result in retrospective application thereof to their deteriment. That
is forbidden by Section 184-A of the Act. This argument does not
commend to us. In that, the effect of the Government Policy is to
disband the establishment of the Reserve Fleet Service with effect
from 3rd July, 1976. As found earlier, drafting of Sailors to the
Reserve Fleet Service was not automatic; but dependent on an
express order to be passed by the competent Authority in that
behalf on case-to-case basis. The Sailors did not have a vested or
accrued right for being placed in the Reserve Fleet Service. Hence,
no right of the Sailors in active service was affected or taken away
because of the Policy dated 3rd July, 1976. Even the argument of
the original applicants that the interpretation of expression “if
required” occurring in Regulation 269(1) bestows unequal
Page 36
36
bargaining power on the Government is devoid of merits. The
validity of Regulation 269(1) was not questioned before the Tribunal
nor any relief was claimed in that behalf. Therefore, this argument
is unavailable to the original applicants. In any case, on a conjoint
reading of the Regulations governing the Service Conditions of the
Sailors and more particularly having noticed that it is the
prerogative of the Government to place the Sailors to the Fleet
Reserve Service; and at the same time option was given to the
Sailors to opt for discharge in terms of Section 16 of the Act, we fail
to understand as to how such dispensation can be termed as
unequal bargaining power. The consequence of not placing the
concerned Sailor to the Fleet Reserve Service may result in
deprivation of Reservist Pension. However, original applicants may
be entitled to get a Special Pension under Regulation 95 of the
Pension Regulations, being a separate dispensation for such
Sailors, unless discharged by way of punishment under Regulation
279.
22. Accordingly, we hold that none of the applicants before the
Tribunal are entitled for Reservist Pension in terms of Regulation 92
Page 37
37
of the Naval (Pension) Regulations, 1964. The Tribunal has relied on
other decisions of other Benches of the same Tribunal, which for
the same reason cannot be countenanced.
Re: Special Pension
23. The next question is whether the Sailors appointed before
1973 were entitled for a Special Pension, in terms of Regulation 95
of the Pension Regulations. Indeed, this is a special provision and
carves out a category of Sailors, to whom it must apply. Discretion
is vested in the Central Government to grant Special Pension to
such Sailors, who fall within the excepted category. Two broad
excepted categories have been noted in Regulation 95. Firstly,
Sailors who have been discharged from their duties in pursuance of
the Government policy of reducing the strength of establishment of
the Indian Navy; or Secondly, of reorganization, which results in
paying off of any ships or establishment. In the present case,
Clause (i) of Regulation 95 must come into play, in the backdrop of
the policy decision taken by the Government as enunciated in the
notification dated 3rd July, 1976. On and from that date,
concededly, the Fleet Reserve Service has been discontinued. That,
Page 38
38
inevitably results in reducing the strength of the establishment of
the Fleet Reserve of the Indian Navy to that extent, after coming
into force of the said policy. None of the Sailors have been or could
be drafted to the Fleet Reserve after coming into force of the said
Policy – as that establishment did not exist anymore and the
strength of establishment of the Indian Navy stood reduced to that
extent. Indisputably, the Sailors appointed prior to 3rd July, 1976,
had the option of continuing on the Fleet Reserve Service after
expiration of their active service/empanelment period. As noted
earlier, in respect of each applicants the appointment letter
mentions the period of appointment as 10 years of initial active
service and 10 years thereafter as Fleet Reserve Service, if required.
The option to continue on the Fleet Reserve Service could not be
offered to these applicants and similarly placed Sailors, by the
Department, after expiration of their empanelment period of 10
years or less than 15 years as the case may be. It is for that
reason, such Sailors were simply discharged on expiration of their
active service/empanelment period. In other words, on account of
discontinuation of the Fleet Reserve establishment of the Indian
Navy, in terms of policy dated 3rd July, 1976 it has entailed in
Page 39
39
reducing the strength of establishment of the Indian Navy to that
extent.
24. That takes us to the case of Appellant No.36 (in C.A. No.2147
of 2011). The said appellant asserts that he was discharged from
the Fleet Reserve unilaterally by the Department. By that time, he
had completed combined 17 years 1 month and 26 days of service,
for which reason was entitled to Reservist Pension under Regulation
92(2) of the Pension Regulations. The said appellant is relying on
communication dated 8th May, 2014 in support of this contention.
Since this appellant was not in active service when the Government
Policy dated 3rd July, 1976 came into being and claims to have been
discharged from the Fleet Service on 30th March, 1967, would be
free to make representation to the competent Authority. It is for the
competent Authority to examine the factum as to whether the
discharge was unilateral and not at the request of the said
appellant and including whether he would be entitled for Reservist
Pension in terms of Regulation 92(2) of the Pension Regulations.
We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion with
Page 40
40
regard to the questions that may require consideration by the
competent Authority in that regard.
25. Thus understood, all Sailors appointed prior to 3rd July, 1976
and whose tenure of initial active service/empanelment period
expired on or after 3rd July, 1976 may be eligible for a Special
Pension under Regulation 95, subject, however, to fulfilling other
requirements. In that, they had not exercised the option to take
discharge on expiry of engagement (as per Section 16 of the Act of
1957) and yet were not and could not be drafted by the competent
Authority to the Fleet Reserve because of the policy of discontinuing
the Fleet Reserve Service w.e.f. 3rd July, 1976. The cases of such
Sailors (not limited to the original applicants before the Tribunal)
must be considered by the Competent Authority within three
months for grant of a “Special Pension” from three years prior to the
date of application made by the respective Sailor and release
payment after giving adjustment of Gratuity and
Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity (DCRG) already paid to them from
arrears. They shall be entitled for interest @ 9% P.A. on the
arrears, till the date of payment.
Page 41
41
26. The appeals are disposed in the above terms with no order as
to costs. Application for impleadment is also disposed of.
……………………………..CJI
(T.S.Thakur)
………………………………..J.
(A.M.Khanwilkar)
………………………………..J.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)
New Delhi,
Dated: 27th October, 2016

About the author

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

43 Comments

  • k s nair says:

    A very good judgement after a long long time of waiting. let ua all hope the IN will implement it ASAP. I am one of them. what will be the future course of action from our end

    View Comment
  • Gurdev singh srawn says:

    A very good judgement. I am also one of them, Joined indian navy in march 1970 and released in march 1980.
    Kindly advise next course of action on my part.

    View Comment
  • Piar Chand says:

    Dear sir,
    I am Piar Chand joined navy 12th August 1967 as an artificer apprentice and requested 6 months premature retired on 21st Feb 1981, i.e total 13.5 years.

    Understand i am now eligible for pension as per latest supreme court order, kindly advise and next action….

    View Comment
  • Surinder Kaushal says:

    Can you please clarify is it 3 years prior to the date of petition or you have to apply to Indian Navy from that date 3 years. Indian Navy has not published yet any order so for. Regards Surinder Kaushal EX Navy sailor.

    View Comment
  • k s nair says:

    Can anybody please clarify the exact address to send the application. Is it ok to send to NAVPEN or any other address?

    View Comment
  • Ramachandrarao Mohan says:

    Dear all,
    On 10 years release sailors pension and facilities SC Order released wef.from October 2016 and followed by November complete and we are on December 2016.
    Navy took a long time since AFT raised the issue the year 2009 on this action item namely 10 years release sailors pension and facilities. When Navy applied SLP to disprove and had a deal with SC and collectively decide.What we know and read through the SC report is the 10 years release sailors will be paid
    special pension and facilities as of ex-serviceman.
    What happend to Navy so for no announcement.we need to wake up hard Navy .

    View Comment
  • Bhola singh says:

    Sir I have served in navy for 10 years 25 days wef 6-4-1974 to 30-04-1984 .I applied for further extension but navy refused for for further extension on medical ground saying that I was in low medical category With 20percent disability. Now I am getting 50 percent disability pension. Am I eligible special pension

    View Comment
  • Surinder Kaushal says:

    Did Indian Navy issued any directives to naval pension office on this order or not. Is there any standard form for applying and what documents required to be Attachment. Please guide on this. Thanks n Regards Surinder Kaushal

    View Comment
  • somdev says:

    hi.
    i have served Indian Navy for 10 years form 2000 to 2010
    in 2008 i have given unwillingness for further service along with my batch mates.
    in 2009 i have asked for further engagement for five years along with my two classmates posted in other units.
    however these two has been given extension but my application was rejected.
    please tell me where do i stand in present scenario.

    View Comment
  • kalwindar singh says:

    kalwindar@yahoo.com. Thanks for good information.Joined in march 70 and discharged in march 80.send me information /forms to apply.

    View Comment
  • D L Raju says:

    Dear Sir,
    It is a very very good judgment after waiting for so long time. I hope that the present NDA government under the able leadership of Shri Narendra Modi shab will implement it ASAP.
    I am also one of the effected. I have joined Indian Navy in Oct 1969 and released on 31 Oct 1979 after completion of 10 years and 14 days service.Please let me know what is the course of action from my end.
    Thanking you sir
    Yours faithfully
    D L Raju

    View Comment
  • Surinder Kaushal says:

    We have applied for special pension in November it self but Indian Navy pension office not even acknowledged the application. If any one knows something something on this pls tell. I request to help us out in the matter.

    View Comment
  • Ramachandrarao Mohan says:

    DEAR ALL, 10 LONG YEAR’S RELEASE SAILORS, PREPARE FOR WORST SCENARIO IS THE LEARNING LEASON WHEN CUT CORNORS TRICKILY BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA – INDIAN NAVY – MINISTRY OF DEFENCE KICKED ON SERVICE BENIFITS AND RIGHTFUL PENSION TO 10 LONG YEARS RELEASE SAILORS – FAMILIES -CHILDRENS BRIGHT FEATURE.MANY NO MORE DUE TO POVERTY AND TECHNICAL MAN – SLAUGHTERING BLAME ALL GO TO GOI, IN,AND MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND FOR INVESTIGATIONS AND WIDER PUBLICITY.

    View Comment
  • Ramachandrarao Mohan says:

    DEAR ALL 10 YEARS SERVED NON PENSIONER AND NOT AVAILING SERVICE SUPPORT TO FAMILIES- CHILDRENS MEDICAL,EDUCATION etc. WHAT WENT WRONG ? EVERY ONE AWARE. FOR EVERY PROBLEM WE SOLVE WITH SOLUTION 1, SOLUTION 2,SOLUTION 3 AND SO ON AND DO NOT GIVE UP. AS IN MAHABHARAT KRISHNA STATED DHURUYODHAN EARS ARE BLOCKED NOTHING WILL REACH IS THE SCENARIO FOR GOI, IN,MOD WITH RESPECT TO SPECION PENSION FOR 10 LONG YEARS SERVED RELEASE SAILORS.WE THE BOYS ENTRY SAILORS DO NOT GIVE UP SO EASILY ON SUCH ATTITUDE. TIME WILL TELL.

    View Comment
  • Ajay singh says:

    I was service in navy from 1966 to 1978
    Please help me know the procedure how to get special pension and from where can applied

    View Comment
  • Soman Koshy says:

    Sir, I served Indian Navy from 1968 to 1979, please help me to get the special pension, Inform me how to get this and what are the procedures…

    Thanking you
    Soman Koshy

    View Comment
  • S r singh ex lro tel says:

    Sir, i served in indian navy fm 6july1973to31 july1983.have applied for special pension to naval authority in nov 2016. But no response yet,pl advise..

    View Comment
  • V M.George says:

    Sir,I have served Indian Navy from Oct 1974 to Dec 1985 after completion of 10 years service.Please help me know the procedure,how to get special pension and where to applied.
    Thanking you,
    V M.George

    View Comment
  • Santosh Kumar Muduli says:

    Sir,
    I have served in Indian Navy from 14.01.1974 and released from service on 30.04.1985. I enrolled into service as a Boys Entry. I have applied to Naval Pension Office for Special Pension on 15th March 2017 as per the Supreme Court Order. But no reply has been received by me.

    Thanking you,
    S.K. Muduli, Ex- L/S.

    View Comment
  • J.D.Paranjape says:

    Dear Sir,

    I served in Indian Navy from Jan 1957-Sept.1966 and was discharged as petty Officer.
    Due to advanced age, day by day I am finding it difficult to visit canteen personally.
    Is there any provision whereby I can issue an authority letter to someone who would
    collect canteen items on my card.
    If affirmative what would be the format of authority letter.
    Regards,
    Adv. Jagadish D. Paranjape

    View Comment
  • Arjun Gadling says:

    I am Arjun Gadling Ex Sea 1 55120 applied for special pension to Naval pension office I contacted Naval Pension office today on 17th April 2017 the reply was no order yet received from government.

    View Comment
  • Banibrata Banerjee says:

    Dear Sir,
    I don’t know why Navy is playing delaying method.Please tell me what we should do now. If Navy is not following SC order then how general public will follow any order> In future there should not be any law and order. Is it democracy?

    Thanks,
    Banibrata Banerjee Ex RO I

    View Comment
  • P.S.Mohan Kumar says:

    Dear Sir,

    If someone wish to file contempt court case in the Hon.Supreme court will this problem of indefinite and prolonged delay in getting the special pension be solved immediately?

    If so can you initiate suitable action in this regard? Kindly intimate the cost required to finish this issue.

    Regards,

    P.S.Mohan kumar-EX-LME,No.097897W.

    View Comment
  • Sarbdip Singh says:

    Hello: I am an ex Indian Navy sailor: joined in July 1973 and released in July 1983. I am a Canadian citizen now and live in Canada. Where can I apply for this pension please! I have all my service documents with me.

    View Comment
  • SANJAY says:

    We do not know what Navy /Finance Ministry / Defence Ministry is doing with this case.
    We sailors were fighting for our rights for more than 40 years. Now Supreme Court corrected the wrong done by Navy. Navy after getting defeated finally is making it a ego issue. It is the institution we were fighting against and not individual. In fact INDIAN NAVY could have come forward to help its own men but that has not happened and Navy opposed everyone who was asking their pension.
    This is dirty attitude and anyone who was not competent to handle this case from Navy end should be court martialled for acting against the law.
    Supreme court has delivered its decision which is not implemented even after 7 months. It is clear case of Contempt of Court.
    We sailor who are old and financially and physically weak ,do have strength to fight cases against cases.
    We can not file contempt case and wait for decade again. We will be all dead by then and Navy will be celebrating victory on our graves.
    New Government is zero on implementation and has a policy of DIE JAWAN – DIE KISAN instead of JAI JAWAN -JAI KISAN.
    We sailors are totally confused and only pray to god
    SAVE OUR SOUL.
    We are defeated but we will always say
    BHARAT MATA KI JAI

    View Comment
  • kp ravi says:

    The judgment is a great relief. Please inform latest on implementation. If the sailor is no more alive, will his widow get special pension till her death.

    View Comment
  • Karun says:

    Hi
    I am karun and I live in Delhi double story apartment .
    I placed the my split AC unit in my gallery from last 11 years but now the problem arising . My Neighbourhood uhood now complaint that your AC blow the hot air in my gallery and because of this my AC is not work properly .
    We both are sharing single so place my unit in my side of the wall.
    I just I want to know what he can do legally on this and how I save my self from this situation

    View Comment
  • Om Parkash Ex-LEMP says:

    Dear Sir,
    Om Parkash ,Gurgaon
    It’s good judgement,but no action by Navy, I think we to again fight for our right.
    I served from 1968 to 1978 with 10+10,I have written to Navy Pesion ,
    No Response since Dec-2016.

    View Comment
  • Vadavarayil Jacob Abraham. says:

    It is a happy news that Indian navy is going to file a Re-view pettuon regarding this SC verdit, let them waste some more Money of the Government, to show their Sovourinty to the homeland by fighting against the poor sailors who have spent their good childhood and blood to the Nation . They are trying to achive some more gallentry awwards like PVSM,AVSM,VSM, VIRCHKRA ETC. Where as we have fought the 1971 war , from Port OKHA, by fuilling to the missils boat who destrothe pakithani ship , that night we can not forget the bombardent and fire on the Oiltanks of NOIC KATHIAWARD OKHA Gujrat.

    View Comment
  • Sanjay says:

    How Mr. Jacob knows that Navy is filing review petition in SC? Is this going to be a long drawn legal battle ?

    I have decided to hand over all my service documents to my grand-son. Now this legal battle will go on for years and I will be dead by then. If something happens he will get pension . For some reason if Navy files review petition again, I have told him to hand over those documents to his grandson. And cycle must continue.
    One day justice will be done.
    There is nothing like supreme justice by Supreme Court .There will be Petitions / review Petitions /Appeals and don’t know what and what…..
    What is justice system …..tiring …tiring …tiring.

    O’ GOD do something for these old soul sailors. They are old . tired ,helpless and financially very weak.
    No political party will come to their help because they are few of them alive .They can not make newspaper headlines unless couple of them commit suicide in front of Prime Minister’s office.
    Indian Navy chief office is all hype and do not have any executive power . All power is with Defence Ministry. Those IAS officer working as Secretaries are like not more than Peons in any Govt office transferring sailors request from one department to another.
    O’ GOD help these people to think right.

    View Comment
  • Gunasekaran says:

    I am also one of them I joined navy in 1974 to 1986 please send message how to implement to get special pension

    View Comment
  • Arjun Gadling says:

    As per naval pension office Ministry of defence filed review petition in July 2017

    View Comment
  • Sanjay says:

    You say they will give pension with 3 years arrears.
    Why 3 years only ?
    Some of the sailors are struggling for more than 30 years and are eligible since then .
    If real justice is to be done,they should be given all their dues since the years they are due.
    This not begging , this is asking what is rightfully due to them. I feel Supreme Court Judgement is wrong, It should have advised Govt. to pay their dues which are pending for last 30 years.

    Arjun says Ministry of Defence filed Review Petition in July 2017 almost 9 months after the Supreme Court Judgement. What a efficiency , that too Ministry of Defence.
    Long live Hindustan …Bharat Mata ki Jai

    View Comment
  • mohanrao says:

    WE ALL AWARE INDIAN NAVY WAS BADLY HAMMERED BY AFT CHENNAI AND 3 APPLICANT BEING PAID AS OF DATE. THE INJURED SNAKE PLAY TRICKS TO LOCK OUT AND TAG OUT BY APPLYING SLP ON SUPREME COURT.

    BY DOING THIS WENT ON COMFORT RIDE AS WHEN ASKED THE CASE UNDER SUPREME COURT AND LET THE COURT DECIDE UNTIL SUCH TIME WE CAN NOT GIVE ANSWER TO NEW APPLICANT.

    THE SHEEP TURN AS WOLF AS ONLY 3 APPLICANT BEING ASKED BY AFT CHENNAI WE PAY AND OTHERS LET THE COURT SAY AND WE PAY.

    WHEN EXPERT COMMITTEE HAMMER CONDITIONAL THE WOLF COMPLETE CUT OFF DATE AND WORRIED.

    THE WOLF TRY TO MAKE TIE UP AS CUT OFF DATE COMPLETE RUSH TO SUPREME COURT AS THE GROUND WORK FAIL , THE WOLF PRETEND THE SUPREME COURT ADVICE / INSTRUCTION NOT CLEAR AND KEPT SILENT AS OF DATE.

    NOW SHEEP AND WOLF CAUGHT UP IN NO MAN LAND AS THE SUPREME COURT INSTRUCTION NOT FOLLOWED.

    NO MAN LAND FOREST RULE APPLY . I HOPE THE SHEEP AND WOLF WAKE UP AND BE GENTLEMAN TO SOLVING PROBLEM INSTEAD FLOAT BY MAKING PROBLEM.

    NO LEARNING LESSON FROM AFT CHENNAI HAMMERED. / THE SNAKE IS INJURED LET US WAIT AND SEE HOW LONG THE MAGIC CONTINUE?

    View Comment
  • Arjun Gadling says:

    Review Petition on Special pension has been filed on 7 Jun 2017 after delay of 228 days they pry for condone this delay. Secondly they pry for oral hearing in review petition.

    View Comment
  • Sanjay says:

    Arjun Gadling please keep updating . How long will this continue. Review petition .
    Tarikh pe Tarikh
    Tarikh pe Tarikh
    Tarikh pe Tarikh
    Tarikh pe Tarikh

    Insaf Kab Milega ya Milega hi Nahi.

    View Comment
  • mohanrao says:

    I APPRECIATE LATE MR.NATHU, HE SACRIFICED HIS LIFE DUE TO THE ONE FAULT MADE BY LATE MR.BAPU AND KILLED. THE LEARNING LESSON IR-RESPECTIVE OF ANY ONE DOING GOOD IS OUR DUTY TO THE LAND WHICH WE BELONG AND THE PLACE WE LIVE IN AND NOT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE AND DO THINGS WRONG OR NOT ACCEPTED.

    POSITIVE IS MORE IMPORTANT IN HUMAN. IF YOU TAKE SNAKE EVEN- THOUGH YOU TRY TO HELP THAT WILL BITE IS NATURE AND STILL WE HAVE TO DO ALL THE BEST TO SAVE THE SNAKE FROM DANGER AND LET GO TO SAFE AREA.

    INDIAN NAVY IS NOT A SNAKE , NOT A SHEEP, NOT A WOLF AND WHO ARE THEY ? HOW COME SO MUCH NEGATIVE ATTITUDE? IN FRONT LOST AND WHY NOT TO PAY PENSION TO SIMILAR APPLICANT? DO THEY WAIT SUCH HAMMERING / WORST SCENARIO? GOD WILLING.

    View Comment
  • Arjun Gadling says:

    Sanjayji insaf jaldhi milnewala hai because review petition heard on priority basis.Review petition is listed on 24 July 2017. let see what happen on 24th July 2017.

    View Comment
  • Arjun Gadling says:

    contempt petition filed by our veteran in may 2017 then MOD filed Review petition in June 2017 both petitions are pending.Till then wait and watch. But Supreme court has given us divine justice no human can snatch it,and we will get our rights.

    View Comment
  • mohanrao says:

    END OF MIND GAME WITH MOD APPLIED RP IN SUPREME COURT AND HOPE THAT FRI-DAY RESULT TO COME OUT.WHAT WENT WRONG? HOPE THAT WILL BE CLEARLY PUT IN EVERY NEWS PAPER. AS WELL THE SPECIALIST DIGGER ON THIS ISSUE SHALL BE APPRECIATED AFT CHENNAI EVEN THE RESULT IS PASS OR FAIL.

    NOW ON CLOSELY WATCH SUCH DIFFICULT ORGANISATION AND WHAT WENT WRONG DAILY BASIS MONITORED AND MADE PUBLICITY IS THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE CORRUPT ATTITUDE CAN BE CORRECTED.

    View Comment
  • Sanjay says:

    Arjunji Thanks for update . Supreme court has given us divine justice. But we are forced to file contempt petition as decision was not implemented even after 9 months and to oppose it Navy and MOD have shown their efficiency & opposition by filing review petition.

    We live in a very strange world. Institutions (Navy & MOD ) who were supposed to take care of us are standing against us. They wants their senior sailors to die as a popper .
    There are no ethics left in Navy. When in active service they have to respect their seniors (compulsorily ) . But when retired they go against their seniors.Basic problem with Navy is that there is shortage of right thinking people at higher (senior)level. Let us pray god , give them wisdom to respect their elderly parents (if they are retired like us). What is lacking in them is HUMANITY.
    Let us hope someone will be exception and act right.
    God bless them with little brain.
    Bharat Mata ki Jai.

    View Comment
  • KK Ramachandran says:

    Welcome SC Judgement on special pension to Sailors completed 10 years of active services.
    Awaiting Government order to implement it

    View Comment
  • SUDESH KUMAR says:

    Thanks for all the information and efforts made
    Joined Indian Navy in 1964 April and left May 1973 since one was allowed to have premature release if you have job in civil
    I was not drafted to fleet reservist since not required
    Do I come under this category to claim pension
    I joined as PSA And left as LSA
    Any information of this will be very useful
    Thanks once again

    View Comment

Leave a Reply

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