ANUJ KUMAR DEY AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 28-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
ANUJ KUMAR DEY AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
.., 
The Navy Act-1957-Section 3(20), ( 16) and 17, Sections 9, 10, II, 12, 
13, (16), 17, and 184-Navy (Pension) Regulations 1964-Regulations 2(1), C 
69(2), 78, 79, 261, 290 and 291-Period of service computation of-Period of 
training as an Artificer Apprentice-Whether to be counted for the qualifying 
period for pensio1t-Held, in the facts of the case the appellant even during 
the period he was working as Artificer Apprentice was in the service of Navy 
as a Sai/o,-Hence, entitled to count the period of training for purposes of 
pension. 
The appellant was enrolled in Indian Navy as Artificer Apprentice 
D 
on 2.8.71. After a period of training for four years, he was advanced to 
Electrical Artificer. After enrollment as apprentice, he was administered 
oath, he was receiving pay during the training period. While giving Badge E 
of Good Conduct to the appellant, the respondent treated the period of 
training as period of service. The appellant was released from service on 
31.1.1988 and in the Discharge Certificate also the training period was 
treated as period of service. 
After release from the service, the appellant was not granted pen-
F 
sionary benefit on the ground that he has not completed qualifying period 
of pension. Since the training period cannot be counted as service period. 
The appellant claiming pensionary benefit filed writ petition before 
High Court which held that the training period could not be counted as 
qualifying period of pension. Hence this appeal. 
G 
Allowing this appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in 
holding that the period of four years when the appellant was employed 
Artificer Apprentice could not be counted for computation of the qualify-
H 
269 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A ing period of pension. The facts of the case and varions provisions of Navy 
Act and the Regulations leave no room for doubt that the appellant even 
during the period he was working as Artificer Apprentice was in the Service 
of Navy, was given Good Conduct Badges for this service and four years 
service was counted from the year 1971. The Discharge Certificate which 
B is a statutory document clearly records that he has served in the Indian 
Navy from 12th August, 1971 to 31st January, 1988. The respondents after 
granting all these certificates and badges, cannot be heard to say that the 
appellant had not put in the qualifying period of service of fifteen years 
and, therefore, was not entitled to get p-ion. [278-H; 279-A; 278-D-F] 
C 
H.S. Sarkar v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 2 An. W .. R. 221), referred 
to. 
1.2. The fact that the appellant was enrolled as an Artificer appren-
tice, does not go to show that he was not serving the Navy as a sailor. The 
statutory provisions go to show that a person can join Indian Navy as an 
D officer or a Sailor. An officer and a petty officer have been defined in 
Sub-sections (16) and (17) of Section 3 and any person who is other than 
an ~fficer and is in naval service has been defined as a sailor. The 
appellant was not an officer. He had joined Indian Navy and imm~diately 
after his enrolment he was made to take oath which every officer and every 
E sailor under Section 13 is bound to take. Regulation 261 clearly lays down 
that recruitment of sailors shall be made through boy entry, artificer 
apprentice entry and direct entry as officer. [275-G-H; 276-A-B] 
13. The contention that even if the appellant is treated as a sailor, 
he cannot be said to have been in the service of Navy during period of 
F training, is not admissible in the facts of the case and in view of the 
provisions of the Act. [276-F-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 1110 of 1992. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.91 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W. No. 1502 of 1991. 
With W.P. (C) Nos. 831/93 and 293, 752 & 601 of 1994. 
G.D. Gupta and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appellants in C.A. No. 
H 1110/92. 
A.KDEYv. U.O.I.[SEN,J.) 
271 
K.G. Bhagat, M.S. Bakshi, G.G. Singh, K.K. Baid, S.S. Dahiya, A.R. A 
Khan, Ranbir Yadav and Debasis Misra for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 
• 
831/93, 293, 752 and 601/94. 
Ms. Niranjan Singh for Ms. Anil Katiyar and Ms. Sushma Suri (NP) 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
SEN. J. Anuj Kumar Dey, the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.