LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus R.K.L.D. AZAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
V.
R.K.L.D. AZAD
AUGUST 9, 1995
B
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.]
Army Act, 1950/Pension Regulations of the Army, 1961 (Part I)
Sections 71, 73, 123/Regulation 113-0fficer committing an offence-
C Subjected to Army Act even after attaining age of superannuation-Sub-
sequently dismissed from service-Whether justified-Held: Yes, Junior Com-
missioned Officer with eligibility to earn pension or gratui[JWhether
dismissal takes away the eligibili[JHeld: Yes.
The respondent, a Junior Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army
D was placed under closed arrest on August 7, 1980 pending his trial by a
General Court Martial for an offence under Section 64(3) of the Army Act.
Since the respondent was due to retire on August 31, 1990 on attaining the
age of superannuation, the Army authorities passed an order extending
his subjection to the Army Act till completion of the trial. The respondent
was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and
E
dismissal from service. After confirmation the order of conviction and
sentence was promulgated on January 15, 1991.
The respondent assailed the said order by filing a writ petition and
the Single Judge set aside the order of dismissal but upheld the conviction
F
and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment.
Both the contesting parties filed Letters Patent Appeals which were
dismissed by the High Court, against which the present appeals were
preferred by the Army authorities.
G
Allowing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1. A person who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 can be
dismissed from service for committing an offence under the Act even after
he had retired on attaining the age of superannuation. [603-G]
H,
Major (Retd.) Hari Chand Pahwa v. Union of India & Anr., [1995]
602
·...::-
...,._
U.0.1. v. R.K.L.D.AZAD [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.]
603
Supp. 1 SCC 221, applied.
2. The grant of pension and gratuity to Junior Commissioned Of-
ficers, other Ranks and Non-Combatants (Enrolled) is regulated by Chap-
ter III of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I). Regulation
113 comes under Section I of the above Chapter. In view of the plain
language of the said regulation the respondent cannot lay any legal or
legitimate claim for pension and gratuity on the basis of his previous
service as, admittedly, he stands dismissed in accordance with Section 73
read with Section 71 of the Act. [606-F; 607-B]
3. This judgment will not stand in the way of the respondent to make
a representation seeking exercise of the discretionary powers of the Presi-
dent under Regulation 113 to grant pension or gratuity. [607-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7107-
7108 of 1995.
A
B
c
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.93 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A.Nos. 594 & 906 of 1991.
P.P. Malhotra, AK. Srivastava and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Appel-
lants.
Nikhil Nair and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Special leave granted.
The two short questions that are required to be answered in these
appeals are :-
(i) whether a person who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 ('Act' for
short) can be dismissed from service for committing an offence under the
E
F
Act even after he had retired on attaining the age of superannuation? and G
(ii) whether a Junior Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army who
has to his credit the minimum period of qualifying service require,d to earn
a pension or gratuity is eligible for the same in case he is dismissed from
service under the provisions of the Act? The questions arise in the wake
of the following undisputed facts.
H
A
B
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
While employed as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the Indian
Army the respondent herein was placed under closed arrest on August 7,
1990 pending his trial by a General Court Martial for an offence under
Section 64( e) of the Act. Since the respondent was due to retire on August
31, 1990. on attaining the age of superannuation the Army authorities
passed an order on August 23, 1990, extending his subjection to the Act
till completion of the trial. In the trial that commenced from November 1,
1990 and ended on November 26, 1990, the respondent was convicted and -
the sentenced imposed for the convietion were rigorous imprisonment for
one year and dismissal from service. After due confirmation in accorExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.