MAJOR GEN. (OLD CAPT.) VIRENDER KUMAR versus THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF & 3 PROFORMA RESPONDENTS

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 11-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
MAJOR GEN. (OLD CAPT.) VIRENDER KUMAR 
v. 
THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF & 3 PROFORMA RESPONDENTS 
MARCH 11, 1994 
(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.) 
Se1Vice Law 
Anny Rules, 195()-lJischarge-f'etitioner claiming to continue in ser-
A 
B 
vice in the absence of discharge under Rule 18-Held, in view of Court's 1986 C 
order, petitioner deemed to be discharged-No funher order required. 
Contempt of coun-Non-payment of dues as per Court's earlier order 
in 1986-Held, department viewing the matter as one of false pres-
tige-Petitioner entitled to interest. 
While dismissing a contempt petition in 1986 the Supreme Court 
ordered that the petitioner, an Army Captain, would be treated as being 
discharged on February 21, 1981. The authorities were directed to pay him 
all benefits, retiral or otherwise, on that basis. 
D 
In the present contempt petition the petitioner contended that be E 
continued in service since an army officer could only be discharged under 
Role 18 of the Army Rules, 1950. He claimed retiral benefits higher than 
that recommended in the report of the Additional Solicitor General who 
was requested to find a solution after hearing the petitioner and the 
authorities. 
F 
Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the decision of this Court in 1986 directing that 
the petitioner shall be deemed to have been discharged from service on 
Fobruary 21, 1981 the respondents were not required to issue any further G 
order. [633 H, 634 DJ 
; , 
2. The petitioner not having been released on recommendation of the 
Medical Board and. not having deposited any amount nor having made any 
application was not entitled to any further amount under the Group 
Insurance Scheme. Since no contribution to the Defence Officers' Provi- H 
629 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 
' 
A dent Fond was made in a capacity other than as Captain, the amount 
,./ 
determined to be payable to the petitioner under this head is correct. The 
petitioner is entitled to be paid terminal gratuity and disability pension as 
calculated by the Department. [634 G, 635 A, BJ 
B 
3."That this amount has not been paid to the petitioner for all these 
years brings out fully the observation made by this Court that the Depart-
ment was viewing the matter as one of false prestige. In thes' circumstan-
" 
ces, there is no option but to award an interest of 14 per cent on this 
amount from March, 1986 to February, 1994 as well as on the persion and 
the Children Education Fund. [637 DJ 
c 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Cr!. M.P. No. 5TlfJ of 
1993. 
IN 
D 
Contempt Petition No. 8 of 1992. 
.._ 
IN 
Writ Petition (Cr!.) Nos. 1741/811344 & 1604 or 1985. 
' 
E 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
WITH 
Contempt Petition No. 8 of 1992. 
F 
IN 
>e 
Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 1741/81 & 1344 & 1604 of 1985. 
G 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
Petitioner in person. 
' .. 
Altaf Ahmad, Addi. Solicitor General, A.S. Nambiar, N.C. Sikri, Ms. 
A. Subhashini, Mrs. A.K. Sikri, Mrs. Madhu Sikri and V.B. Saharya for the 
H respondents. 
,7 
VIRENDER v. ARMY STAFF [SAHAI,J.] 
631 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
R.M. SARAI, J. This is second application for contempt filed by the 
petitioner, who was a Captain in Army and was injuried on war front in 
1%5, for implementation of the order passed by this Court in 1981 and 
1986. When the first contempt application and a writ petition for habeas 
corpus filed by the wife of petitioner, in circumstances which are not B 
necessary to be narrated, was decided in 1986 it was observed as under :-
'When judgment was pronounced in Civil Appeal No.475 of 1976 
(Captain Virender Kumar v. Union of India), it was thought that an 
unhappy litigation had come to a happy ending. But it was not so. 
It appears that Civil Appeal No. 475 of 1976 was only a prelude 
to a long drawn out acrimonious and dogged litigation, both parties 
to which appreared to us to be blameworthy. On the one hand, 
c 
the matter appears to be viewed by the authorities as one of 
prestige, that is, false prestige and hurt dignity. On the other hand, 
there is misplaced determination coupled with a sense of an D 
emotional hurt on the side of the Captain." 
Since then sever year elapsed and the petitioner once again ap-
proached this Court for implementation of the order passed in 1981 and 
1986. It is not necessary for us to refer to various affidavits filed by parties 
as Sh

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