Writ petition by defence authorities against Armed Forces Tribunal order condoning shortfall in qualifying service for pension. The Court held Regulation 125 excludes discharge on own request from condonation; the respondent's 1996 discharge on own request barred relief. Tribunal order set aside and original application 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.
W.P.No.26105 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.01.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.26105 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.29381 and 29384 of 2025
New Delhi 110 011
Petitioners
Vs
_______________ Page 1 of 8_
W.P.No.26105 of 2025
Ex Sep B Kannan Service No 2584974W S/o Late Belli Gounder Mel Kundah Dodda Combai Post 643219 Tamil Nadu
Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of O.A.No 131 of 2022 with MA 201 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022 passed by Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai (Regional Bench) thereby quashing and setting, aside the impugned order.
For Petitioners: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Addl. Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy Sr. Panel Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.L.Rajaiah for Mr.Soloman Pandian
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
_______________ Page 2 of 8_
W.P.No.26105 of 2025
_______________ Page 3 of 8_
W.P.No.26105 of 2025
submit that the order of the Tribunal proceeds on such similar orders passed by the Tribunal in many cases and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent is not entitled to those benefits. According to him, such kind of orders have been passed even by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chennai, in many cases and, if the order is interfered with, the respondent would be excluded from the benefit, which has been granted in many such similarly situated cases.
there are many decisions and orders, none of them, upon perusal, are found to be in support of his contention.
Regulation 125, which reads thus:
Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.26105 of 2025
(c) an individual who is invalided with less than 15 years service, deficiency in service for eligibility to service pension or reservist pension or gratuity in lieu may be condoned by a competent authority upto six months in each case.”
_______________ Page 5 of 8_
W.P.No.26105 of 2025
the representation that the respondent was discharged from service on his own request. The opening part of the order of the Tribunal itself clearly states that the respondent was discharged on his own request. If that be the admitted position, we fail to understand how could the Tribunal pass such an order in transgression of the limits provided under the law. We have no hesitation in holding that the order of the Tribunal is patently illegal and in excess of its jurisdiction.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 09.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr
_______________ Page 6 of 8_
W.P.No.26105 of 2025
To:
_______________ Page 7 of 8_
W.P.No.26105 of 2025
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
bbr
W.P.No.26105 of 2025
09.01.2026
_______________ Page 8 of 8_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Regulation 125 permits condonation of service shortfall for a person discharged on his own request.
Whether the Tribunal's order condoning deficiency was in excess of jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Union of India
The Chief of Army Staff
The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions)
The Officer-in-Charge, The Madras Regiment, Wellington
Ex Sep B Kannan
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
G. Arul Murugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
