A Division bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that shortfall of less than 12 months in qualifying service for second service pension is condonable, therefore entitling the respondent to second service pension.
Background Facts
The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on 21.09.1961. He was discharged on 12.12.1984 after serving for 22 years, 3 months, and 9 days. Thereafter, he re-enrolled in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) on 14.06.1986. He retired on 31.01.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation, after rendering 14 years, 5 months, and 16 days of service, thus falling short of the required 15 years of qualifying service by 4 months and 13 days. Therefore, the respondent claimed the benefit of condonation of shortfall in qualifying service up to 12 months for the purpose of grant of a second service pension. The Armed Forces Tribunal allowed the claim of second service pension to the respondent by condoning the shortfall in service.
Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, the Union of India filed the writ petition challenging the grant of service pension to the respondent.
It was contended by the petitioner that the respondents were claiming the benefit of second pension while working in the Defense Security Corps (DSC) wherein, they have not completed 15 years of service which is a condition precedent for grant of second service pension.
On the other hand it was contended by the respondent that the respondent had rendered 14 years, 5 months, and 16 days of service in the Defence Security Corps, falling short of 15 years only by 4 months and 13 days. Therefore, he was entitled to condonation of shortfall up to 12 months, which had already been recognized in the case of Smt. Shama Kaur v. Union of India.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the Court that the respondent had served 14 years, 5 months, and 16 days in the Defence Security Corps and thus fell short of the mandatory 15 years of qualifying service by only 4 months and 13 days. The case of Smt. Shama Kaur v. Union of India was relied upon by the court wherein the benefit of condonation of the service period upto 12 months was allowed. Later this judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, it was held that the respondent’s claim was fully covered by the judgment.
It was further observed that the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court in Ex. NK Chinna Vediyappan’s case could not be a ground to defer adjudication. It was held by the court that NK Chinna case related to condonation beyond one year, whereas in the respondent’s case, the shortfall was within one year. The judgment in Union Territory of Ladakh v. J&K National Conference was relied upon by the court wherein it was clarified that High Courts cannot keep matters pending merely on the ground that a similar issue is before the Supreme Court, unless specifically directed to do so.
It was held by the Court that since the petitioners could not rebut the applicability of Shama Kaur judgment to the respondent’s claim, therefore no ground for interference was made out. It was concluded that the Tribunal’s order did not suffer from any perversity.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed, and the order of the Tribunal granting the benefit of second service pension to the respondent by condoning the shortfall in service was upheld.
Case Name : Union Of India And Others Kamla Devi And Another
Case No. : CWP-12576-2025 (O&M)
Counsel for the Petitioner : Amit Arora, Senior Panel Counsel
Counsel for the Respondents : N/A