UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus BRG. P. K.DUTTA (RETD)

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 07-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
BRG.P.K.DU1TA(RETD) 
DECEMBER 7, 1994 
[B. P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Army Act/Army Rules/Pension Regulations : Section 71/Rule 14116 
(a)- Court Martial just after superannuation-Retiral benefits not paid- · 
High Court directing payment-Pendency of proceedings for forfeiture of 
pensions noi specifically mentioned before High Court-However, mention 
of it found in the counter affidavit filed in the High Court-Directions 
issued for concluding the proceedings within one month failing which 
directions of High Court would be given effect to--Jf orders passed within 
the stipulated period, retiral benefits would be subject to such orders-Held 
: No inconsistency between Section 71 (h) and regulation 16 (a). 
Respondent joined the Army as a Commissioned Officer in 1960. 
He rose to the rank of Brigadier and retired on December 31, 1991 on 
attaining the age of superannuation. Since the retiral .benefits due to 
him were not paid, he laid a claim therefore. In January · 1992, 
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He was tried by a 
General 
Court Martial 
and 
awarded 
three 
years 
rigorous 
imprisonment and was also cashiered. These findings were confirmed 
by the Chief of the Army Staff and became final. 
Respondent approached the High Court by way of a writ Petition. 
The High Court held that cashiering by itself could not result in 
forfeiture of the retria.1 benefits, and issued directions to the Union of 
India to disburse within one month the retiral benefits such as pension , 
gratuity etc. as permissible under the rules. Union of India has 
preferred the present appeal. 
The appellants contended that proceedings for forfeiture of retiral 
benefits as contemplated by Regulation 16 (a) of the Pension 
Regulations, were indeed initiated and were pending, which fact was 
brought to the knowledge of the High Court and yet the directions were 
issued. 
H 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
358 
U. 0. I. v. P. K. DUTT A 
359 
HELD : 1. It appears that pendency of proceeding for forfeiture of A 
retiral benefits was not specifically brought to the notice (>f the High 
Court. Had it been so brought to its notice, the High Court would not 
have made the directions. But having regard to the crucial relevance of 
the said averment and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this 
Court is inclined to take note of the statements in the counter affidavit 
to the above effect. Once this is so, it should follow that the directions B 
given by the High Court become unsustainable in law. At the same time 
the proceedings initiated under Regulation 16 (a) have to be directed to 
be disposed of expeditiously. (361 A, G, H, 362 A) 
2. Regulation 16 (a) of the Pension Regulations contemplates a 
situation where an officer is cashiered dismissed or removed from C 
service and provides how his pension is to be dealt with. Whereas 
Section 71 (h) provides the punishment which can be awarded by the 
Court Martial, at the conclusion of the Court Martial, Regulation 16 
(a) contemplates a stage -subsequent to the awarding a punishment by 
Court Martial and its confirmation. The nature and content of both the 
impositions is altogether different and distinct. So is the field occupied D 
by clause (k) of section 71 wholly distinct from Regulation 16 (a). 
Therefore, there is no inconsistency between Section 71 (h) and 
Regulation 16 (a). [363 A to CJ 
3. It is true that the Pension Regulations are non-statutory in 
character. But as held by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 831 of 1993 
disposed of on July 26, 1994, the pensionary benefits are provided for E 
and are payable only under those Regulations and can, therefore, be 
withheld or forfeited, as provided by these very Regulations. Army 
Rule 14 has absolutely no relevance on this aspect. (363 C, D, G) 
4. It is directed that: 
(i) The proceedings initiated under Regulation 16 (a) shall be 
concluded within six months. This time limit is fixed in view of the fact 
that the proceedings are said to have been initiated even by the time the 
counter affidavit was filed in the High Court. (364 A) 
F 
(ii) If no orders are passed under Regulation 16 (a) of the Pension G 
Regulation within the aforesaid period, the directions of the High 
Court shall be given effect to. (364 BJ 
(iii) In case orders are ·passed under Regulation 16 (a) within the 
aforesaid period, the right of the respondent to receive re

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