UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus LT. COL P.S. BHARGAVA

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 10-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
LT. COL P.S. BHARGAVA 
JANUARY 10, 1996 
(J.S. VERMA AND B.N. K.IRPAL, JJ.) 
Service Law .~Terminal benefits---Entitlement to-Army Of-
ficer-Completed minimwn period of qualifying service for retiring per-
so1t-Subsequently, voluntarily resiy1ed-Held : Such Amiy Officers who 
C voluntarily resign could not be automatically deprived of terminal 
benefits-No effect need be given to Army Headquarter's letter dated 
25.4.1981-Pension Regulations for the Amiy, 1961-Regns 3, 4, 16(a) & (b), 
·22, 25, 26 and 38. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136-Pleading-New Plea-Writ 
D petition challenging acceptance of resignation rejected by High Court-Con-· 
tention of entertainability of second writ petition by High Court not raised 
before High Court-Held : such a new contention not allowed to be raised 
for the first time be/ ore the Supreme Co wt. 
The respondent joined the Army Dental Corps and thereafter he 
E served in different capacities and was classified a~ a specialist and had been 
promoted to the rank of Lt. Colonel. The respondent, having completed the 
minimum period of qualifying service for retiring pension, wrote, letter to 
the appellant requesting permission to resign from service. The appellant 
accepted the said resignation but mentioned that the respondent would not 
F 
be entitled for pensionary benefits vide Army Headquarter letter dated 
25.4.1981. 
Being aggrieved the respondent filed a writ petition before the High 
Court challenging the acceptance of his resignation. However, the High 
Court rejected this writ petition. Subsequently, the respondent filed a 
G second writ petition before the High Court claiming pension and other 
terminal benefits which was allowed. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the second writ 
petition should not have beeni entertained by the High Court because the 
respondent had not claimed any relief with regard to pension and other 
H terminal benefits. However, the appellant conceded that this contention was 
130 
I 
v 
u.o.r. v. P.S. BHARGAVA 
131 
not raised before the High Court. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
Held : 1.1. It is not the case of the appellant that the respcndent's 
service was not satisfactory. Therefore, no reduction of pension or 
gratuity under Regulation 3 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, B 
1961 could have been ordered. There is no suggestion that the conduct 
of the respondent was such as to deprive him of the terminal benefits 
under Regulation 4. [136-A-B] 
1.2. Regulation 16 does not cover a case of voluntary resignation. C 
Regulation 16(b) does refer to a case where an officer who has to his credit 
the minimum period of qualifying service for retiring pension being called 
upon to resign whose pension can be reduced. Had the Regulation intended 
to take away the right of a person to th<' terminal benefits on his voluntary 
resigning, then a specific provision similar to Regulation 16(b) would have 
been incorporated in the Regulations but this has not been done. Once an D 
officer has to his credit the minimum period of qualifying service, he earns 
a right to get pension and as the Regulations stand, that right can been 
taken away only if an order is passed under Regulation 3 or 16. The eases 
of voluntary resignation of officers, who have to their credit the minimum 
period of qualifying service are not covered by these two Regulations and, E 
so such officers, who voluntarily resign, cannot be automatically deprived 
of the terminal benefits. Therefore, no effect need be given to the Army 
Headquarter letter dated 25-4-1981 which states that the pensionary 
benefits will be lost if an officer resigns from service. [136-F-H, 137-A] 
2. It will not be proper, at this late stage, to allow the appellant to F 
raise the contention of entertainability of the second writ petition by the 
High Court, the same having not been raised before the High Court, for the 
first time before this Court. [i34-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 252. of 
1988. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.87 of the Assam High 
Court in C.R. No. 994 of 1986. 
N.N. Goswami, A.K. Srivastava, Ms. Anubha Jain and P. Parmesh-
waran for the Appellants. 
H 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
M.N. Krishnamani, Ms. Nishi Bhargav, P.N. Bhargav and P.K. Jain 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KIRPAL, J. In this appeal, from the j
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.