SHISH RAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 23-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 289 
SHISH RAM 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 2006) 
NOVEMBER 23, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Defence Services Regulations, 1961 - Regulation 206 
A 
B 
- Appellant enrolled in Army, transferred to the Reserve 
establishment after serving more than ten years of Army C 
Service - Failure of appellant to attend reservist training as 
also failure to furnish exemption certificate exempting him 
from training - Appellant dismissed from service by the 
Brigade Commander -
Writ petition challenging order of 
dismissal on the ground that only officer-in-charge of D 
Reservists could dismiss him, and also claimed pension -
Writ petition dismissed - On appeal held: There is no mention 
in Regulation 206 that the officer-in-charge of the reservists 
has the power to either remove or dismiss a reservist from the 
service - Regulation 206 cannot take away the power vested 
E 
under the Army Act in the brigade commander to dismiss or . 
remove any person working under him - Therefore, the High 
Court rightly held that the brigade commander had the power 
to dismiss the appellant from service - Regulation 113 (a) is 
clear that an individual who is dismissed under the provisions 
F 
of the Army Act is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect 
of all previous service - Thus, the High Court rightly rejecting 
the claim of the appellant for pension - Pension Regulations, 
1961 - Regulation 113 (a) - Army Act, 1950 - s. 20 (3). 
Appellant was enrolled in the Army on 28.01.1963. G 
After completing more than ten years of Army Service, he 
was transferred to the reserve establishment where he 
was required to attend reservist training but he failed to 
do so. He failed to furnish the exemption certificate 
2B9. 
H 
• 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A exempting him from the training. He was declared as a 
deserter with effect from 19.06.1978 and was dismissed 
from service with effect from 20.10.1981 by the Brigade 
Commander. The appellant filed a writ petition 
challenging the order of dismissal and claimed pension. 
B He contended that only the officer-in-charge of the 
reservists could dismiss him from service. The High Court 
dismissed the petition. Therefore, the appellant filed the 
instant appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A reading of Regulation 206 of the Defence 
Services Regulations, 1961, would show that a man, who 
has been transferred to the reserve, comes under the 
administration and disciplinary orders of the Officer-in-
D Charge reservists. There is no mention in Regulation 206 
that the Officer-in-Charge of the reservists has the power 
to either remove or dismiss a reservist from service. A 
plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Army 
Act would show that an officer having power not less 
E than a brigade or equivalent commander or any 
prescribed officer may dismiss or remove from the service 
any person serving under his command other than an 
officer or a junior commissioned officer. Regulation 206 
cannot take away the power vested under the Army Act 
F in the brigade commander to dismiss or remove any 
person working under him. Therefore, the High Court 
rightly held in the impugned judgment that the brigade 
commander had the power to dismiss the appellant from 
service. [Para 7] [293-G-H; 294-A-C] 
G 
H 
1.2 Regarding pension and gratuity claimed by the 
appellant, Regulation 113 (a) of the Pension Regulations, 
1961 is clear that an individual, who is dismissed under 
the provisions of the Army Act, is ineligible for pension 
or gratuity in respect of all previous service. As the 
SHISH RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
291 
appellant had been dismissed from the service under the 
A 
provisions of the Army Act, he was not eligible for 
pension and gratuity and the High Court was right in 
rejecting the claim of the appellant for pension in the 
impugned judgment. [Para 8] [294-D-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
B 
4523 of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2004 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5580 of 
2000. 
c 
S.M. Hooda, R.C. Kaushik for the Appellant. 
R. Balasubramaniam, Purnima Bhat, Anil Katiyar for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal by way of special 
leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment 
dated 22.11.2004 of the Delhi H

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