KAMAL SINGH GHUGTYAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 03-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KAMAL SINGH GHUGTYAL 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 3, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
B 
--.( 
Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I): Regulations 
Nos. 132 & 126: Entitlement to pension-Havaldar rendering less than 
-
qualifying servic~Held not entitled to pension. 
,( 
Regulation No. 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 c 
(Part I) prescribes minimum qualifying colour service of fifteen years 
for earning service pension. Regulation No. 126 provides for counting 
of former service. 
The petitioner's representation for pension was rejected on the 
ground that he had not beeb in the Army service for a period of 15 years D 
as required under the Army Pension Rules. 
In the writ petition the petitioner claimed that he had served in 
the Army from November 1939 to August 1948, when he was released in 
the rank of Havaldar, that he was again recalled and served in the 
-~ 
Army Supply Corps (MT) from July 1948 to July 1953 in the rank of E 
Havaldar, when he was again recalled by the Kumaon Regiment and 
served in the Lok Sahayak Sena from July 1953 to July 1956 in the 
rank of Havaldar. He further stated that service rendered by him in the 
"" 
LSS (third spell) should be treated as services in the army and he having 
served for more than 15 years in the army was entitled to pension. 
His claim that he was in the army service for over 19 years, was F 
' 
contested by the respondents, who stated that the petitioner was enrol-
-\ led in the Army on November 24, 1940 and discharged from service 
with effect from October 26, 194', that he was subsequently re-enrolled 
in ASC (MT) with Army on March 8, 1948 and discharged from there 
on May 20, 1952, and that he was re-enrolled with the Kumaon Regi-
ment on March 2, 1955 for Lok Sahayak Sena and discharged from G 
there on September 2, 1957. It was further stated that the service 
rendered by him in LSS was not countable towards pension and that his 
~ 
service in the first two spells was 10 years and 54 days only. 
The petitioner could not produce relevant documents in support 
of his statement. 
H 
769 
A 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
( 1988) I S.C.R. 
Dismissing the writ petition, 
HELD: The petitioner has not rendered 15 years of army service 
to be able to get the benefit of army pension as required under the army 
rules. (772F] 
B 
The statements of the petitioner regarding the periods of service 
rendered by him in the first and the second spell are inconsistent with his 
record of service produced by the respondents at the hearing. (772D·EI 
>--
His service in the National Volunteer Force (LSS) cannot be 
treated as army service countable towards pension. [7720) 
c 
ORIGINAL 
of !986. 
JURISDICTION: Writ 
Petition 
No. 
\ 
1702 _,A 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
D 
K.M.M. Khan Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner. 
E 
0.P. Sharma, Mrs. Subhadra and P. Parmeshwaran for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.C. RAY, J. The petitioner who was a HavaWar in the Army 
(No. 4142276) has moved this writ petition praying for an order direct· 
ing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to give pensionary benefit to the 
petitioner as he has served about 19 years in the army as a Havaldar. 
The petitioner has stated that in the first spell he has served in 
F 
Kumaon Regiment from November, 1939 to August, 1947 during the 
second world war. He was released from the army service in August, 
1947 in the rank of Havaldar (No. 16235). The petitioner was again 
recalled during Kashmir operations, in the Kumaon Regiment and he 
served in the Army Supply Corps (MT) from July, 1948 to July, 1953 in 
the rank of Havaldar (DUR-No. 6556074). The petitioner further 
G 
stated that he was recalled from Army Supply Corps (MT) by Kumaon 
Regiment and transferred to impart training in the Lok Sahayak Sena 
of K.R.C. Platoon No. 28 where he served from July, 1953 to July, 
1956 in the rank of Havaldar. As his job was to impart military training 
to Lok Sahayak Sena which is like NCC, he retained a regular army 
No. 4142276. The petitioner stated that in an alleged incident of stor· 
H 
ing illicit arms in his house, there was a police raid and all his papers 
I )· 
-
J 
K.S. GHUGTYAL v. U.O.l. (RAY, J.] 
771 
were taken away by the police and as such he had no papers left with 
A 
him to prove his service in the regular army except a statement of 
accounts QE 11/56, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure 
P-2. It has been stated 

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