The High Court held that the petitioner, a former army officer, is not entitled to military pension. The re-employment civil service period cannot be tagged with prior military service as it fails to meet the requisite minimum qualifying service of 15 years. The original petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/29TH SRAVANA, 1935
OP(AFT).NO. 2819 OF 2013 (Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A. NO. 208 OF 2010 OF ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL,REGIONAL BENCH,KOCHI DATED 07.01.2013
PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT :
RAJAN P.NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, KRISHNAKRIPA, OPP: VISHNU TEMPLE, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :
BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
THIS OP (ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL - ART.227) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NS
OP(AFT).NO. 2819 OF 2013 (Z) -----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
/ TRUE COPY /
NS P.A. TO JUDGE
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.
OP(AFT) No.2819 of 2013
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Petitioner, who enrolled in the Army on 19.06.1967, was discharged on his request from such service on 22.03.1979. Thereafter, he got re-employment on 07.07.1980 with 512 Army Base Workshop, Kirkee. He resigned from that re-employment post on 18.03.1985. The service he had rendered in the Army till 22.03.1979 was for a period of 11 years 9 month and 3 days. That period is insufficient to grant him military pension. The question is whether the period of 4 years 8 months and 12 days served on re-employment from 07.07.1980 to 18.03.1985 in the 512 Army Base Workshop, Kirkee could be tagged along with the prior service till 22.03.1979 for reckoning eligibility to military pension. The learned Tribunal has considered all relevant aspects and has, succinctly, and correctly answered the legal issue by stating that the petitioner is not entitled to grant military pension, since he did not have the requisite minimum qualifying service of
OP(AFT) 2819/13
-2-
15 years and that the subsequent civil service cannot be directed to be added to the military service. The learned Tribunal has rightly distinguished the decision in Kuttan Pillai v. Union of India and others (2000 KHC 623), which has been cited before us also. On facts, the distinguishing features noted in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order clearly justifies the non-applicability of Kuttan Pillai's case (supra) as a precedent to the facts in hand. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The original petition fails.
In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)
jg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant military pension by tagging the period of civil service rendered on re-employment with the prior army service.
Whether the impugned order of the Armed Forces Tribunal committing no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity regarding the petitioner's pension eligibility.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kuttan Pillai v. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶36
Kuttan Pillai v. Union of India and others (2000 KHC 623)
Rajan P.Nair
Union of India
Director General of EME
Record Officer for OIC-EME Records
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
B.Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
