Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 341 (DEL)

SATBIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-03-30

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

body2001
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ( 1 ) CHALLENGE is made in the present writ petition to the order dated 1/7/1992 issued by the respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner to count the former army service of the petitioner towards pension. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to count the former army service of the petitioner towards pension and to pay all the dues to the petitioner after re-fixation of the pension for the length of 28 years of service w. e. f. 1. 5 1992. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was enrolled as a Combatant Soldier in the Indian Army on 28/10/1963. The petitioner was however, discharged from the Army service w. e. f. 18/8/1968. Thus the petitioner served in the Army for 4 years and 346 days. Subsequently, the petitioner was re- employed in the Defence Security Corps (hereinafter referred to as dsc for short) on 5/4/1969. The respondent No. 3 circulated a letter dated 19/3/1983 whereby options were called for within 6 months from the date of issue of the letter dated 3/3/1983 for counting of former service of the individual towards pension and gratuity in DSC. It was indicated in the said letter that DSC personnel were required to exercise their option within 3 months from the date of issue of the Government letter dated 3/3/1983 till 2/6/1983 as under- (A) to continue to draw military pension and retain DCRG, or retain service gratuity and DCRG received on discharge from military service in which case his former military service shall not count as qualifying service; or (B) to cease to draw his pension or refund the service gratuity, including DCRG, if any, and count the previous military service as qualifying service. ( 3 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that (curing the aforesaid period the petitioner was posted at INS Kunjali, Bombay and that no body instructed the petitioner to exercise the option during the aforesaid period and the petitioner had no knowledge about the issuance of the said circular. It is stated that subsequently, when the petitioner was posted in 1986 at COD Agra, he was asked to exercise his option and then the petitioner exercised his option to count his former service in the Army towards pension. It is stated that subsequently, when the petitioner was posted in 1986 at COD Agra, he was asked to exercise his option and then the petitioner exercised his option to count his former service in the Army towards pension. However, the option of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent and therefore, the present petition is filed in this court. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the records placed before me. ( 5 ) IN terms of the aforesaid circular issued on 3/3/1983 which was circulated on 19/3/1983 counting of former service of an individual towards pension/gratuity in DSC subsequent to his re-enrolment in DSC was Subject to exercise of the option. The said option was to be exercised on or before 2/6/1983 and if no such option was exercised by the said date, it was made clear that such personnel would be deemed to have. opted for the option given in appendix a to the said letter. According to the petitioner he had no knowledge of issuance of such a circular and therefore, he could not exercise such option in terms of the said circular. It is however, stated in the counter affidavit that. the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner is not correct. It is stated that the DSC personnel are deployed for duty in various military installations spread throughout the country and therefore, general policy matters concerning their service matters are communicated to their installations where they are deployed for duty through directors DSC at Command Headquarters and Assistant Directors (OSC ). It is specifically stated that the aforesaid letter was circulated to all concerned and therefore, the petitioner had knowledge about the contents of the aforesaid circular. The time limit for exercising the option in the said government letter was later on amended to read as 6 months instead of 3 months vide Government of India letter dated 22/6/1983 which also was conveyed to all concerned. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that this was done by the Government with an intention to give last opportunity to DSC personnel who could not exercise their option within the stipulated time limit for one reason or the other. ( 6 ) IN terms of the same the last dated to exercise the option was fixed as 2/11/1983. ( 6 ) IN terms of the same the last dated to exercise the option was fixed as 2/11/1983. The petitioner was posted at INS Kunjali, Colaba, Bombay on 16/1/1983 and remained posted at the same place till 23/3/1986. The petitioner, at that time, was working as a Junior Commissioner officer, which is a higher post in DSC. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that other DSC personnel attached with the said Station had exercised their option in terms of the Government of India letter dated 3/3/1983 within the stipulated time limit and personal occurrence to the aforesaid effect was published in the said office. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, it cannot be believed that the petitioner had no knowledge of the said circular issued by the respondents. In terms of the said circular the petitioner could have exercised his option in terms of the extension granted on or before 2/9/1983. The petitioner did not exercise his option and submitted the same somewhere in September, 1996. The said option exercised by him was riot done within the stipulated period of 6 months from the date of issue of the Government letter, and although the petitioner had exercised the said option on 1/9/1986 the same was amended to read as 1/9/1985. There is an over-writing on the year 1986 and the same was changed to 1985 although in the seal it is apparent that the same was filed only in 1986. The request of the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected under letter dated 16/7/1988. The petitioner was transferred to Pension establishment w. e. f. 1/5/1992 and he was granted service pension @ Rs. 1,044. 00 plus dearness relief. ( 8 ) SINCE the respondent issued a circular calling for exercise of option within a stipulated period the option should have been exercised within the time limit stipulated therein. The last date for submission of the option was also subsequently extended by the respondents which also ended on 2/9/1983. The petitioner did not exercise his option and the sought for such extension three years after closure of the said exercise. The said option exercised by the petitioner beyond the stipulated period was also rejected and the same was also communicated to the petitioner somewhere in the year 1988. The petitioner did not exercise his option and the sought for such extension three years after closure of the said exercise. The said option exercised by the petitioner beyond the stipulated period was also rejected and the same was also communicated to the petitioner somewhere in the year 1988. It cannot be accepted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the circulation of the said circular as other personnel from the same Unit had exercised their option As no option was exercised by the petitioner, the respondents were justified in construing that the petitioner did not desire counting of former Army service which is also in accordance with the contents of the said circular. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid position and reasons no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.