Dismissed

Mukhtar Masih v. Union of India and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2014CWP/24775/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil writ petition challenging the rejection of a pension claim. The petitioner, an ex-serviceman with less than 15 years military service, argued his private employment in a defence factory should count as qualifying service. The court rejected the claim, holding that private employment, regardless of the nature of products, does not qualify as military service.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for grant of pensionary benefits was dismissed.

Mukhtar Masih Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.24775 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 04, 2014

¶3

Ex.Sepoy Mukhtar Masih .....Petitioner versus

¶4

Union of India and others .....Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.

¶6

Present: Mr.Dinesh Nagar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶7

-.-

¶8

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶9

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

¶12

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner impugns the order dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, whereby his claim for the grant of pensionary benefits, has been turned down on the ground that he rendered army service for 9 years 5 months and 20 days, whereas 15 years minimum service is required for earning service pension as per Regulation 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961.

¶14

The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before us is that after serving Indian Army from 14.03.1964 to 04.09.1973, he joined M/s VXL (I) Limited at Faridabad on 18.03.1974 and continued to serve in that factory till 10.12.1985 and again from 9.3.1987 to 10.04.1991. The petitioner claims that though the above-mentioned industry is a private industry but the Artillery Bomb Shells manufactured in that factory are supplied to Indian Army only, hence his

¶15

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.09 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

[2]

¶17

CWP No.24775 of 2014

¶18

private service also deserves to be treated at par with the military service for the purpose of 'qualifying service'.

¶19

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, we are unable to accept the same. We say so for the reason that admittedly the above-stated industry is a private concern. The industrial unit has not been set-up either by a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act nor Government of India has any share-holding in that company. The service rendered by the petitioner in private employment, irrespective of the nature of industrial activities of the factory, thus, cannot be counted towards military service for the purpose of pension or other retiral benefits.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶22

December 04, 2014 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶23

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.09 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Mukhtar Masih v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtar Masih v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmail Singh and Ors. Vs Divisional Deputy Director and Anr.

Hari Singh & Ors. Vs Director Rural Dev. & Ors.

Food Corporation of India Vs Addl. Director Consolidation of Holding

Rakesh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kartar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manphool and Others Vs State of Haryana and Anothers