UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 07-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4714-4715 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 07, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 – Regulations 78, 101,
101A, 101B, 105B & 107 – Grant of service element of disability
pension when released on account of completion of engagement
but, not qualifying service for pension – Applicant, in low medical
category since 1970, was discharged after completion of 10 years,
169 days of service but, did not complete the qualifying service of
15 years for pension in terms of Regulation 78 – Granted disability
pension @50% on account of suffering from Viral Myocarditis post
discharge, but was denied the benefit of service element of disability
pension –Tribunal held the applicant entitled to full disability
pension including the service element – Held: In terms of
Regulations, individuals who are invalided out of service on account
of disability for the reason that no alternative employment suitable
to their low medical category or an individual who at the time of his
release under the Release Regulations is in lower medical category,
are entitled to disability pension – Clause 1 & 2 of Regulation 105B,
relied by the appellants, are applicable to sailors who discharged
from service on completion of the period of engagement and have
earned only service gratuity in terms of Clause (3) of the said
Regulation– Clause 1 pertains to the grant of service pension in
addition to the disability element– Therefore, in terms of Clause 3,
service element would be payable to an individual who has been
paid service gratuity –Purpose of Regulation 105B is to exclude
dual payment of the service element of disability pension, when an
individual is entitled to service pension as well – Regulation 105B
has not used the expression ‘on completion of qualifying service’ –
Interpretation as argued by the appellants leads to addition of words
in Regulation 105B which is not permissible as the Regulations have
to be interpreted harmoniously and not by adding words to it– A
person who has completed the period of engagement is entitled to
   [2019] 14 S.C.R. 78
78
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
79
disability element apart from service pension – Expression ‘service
pension’ admissible is not restricted to the qualifying service provided
u/Regulation 78 – Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation
105B when no such qualification is provided in Regulation 105B –
Interpretation advancing the object of the grant of disability needs
to be accepted being beneficial provision for class of individuals
who suffered disability in the course of duty – Regulation 107 deals
with quantification of disability pension in the cases of an individual,
who has not completed qualification service– In cases where the
disability was suffered while flying or parachute jumping, the
minimum service pension is appropriate to his rank and group but
in all other cases, the service pension is restricted to minimum of
two-thirds of the minimum service pension –For such reason, the
disability element would be in addition to the service pension by
cumulative reading of Regulation 78, Regulation 105B and
Regulation 107 – Service pension to be assessed on the basis of the
minimum service pension laid down for an able individual of the
same group in Regulation 107 –Appellants to pay the arrears of
service element in terms of directions of the Tribunal– Interpretation
of Statutes – Rules of – Harmonious Construction; Casus Omissus –
Service Law.
Interpretation of Statutes – Rules of – Harmonious
Construction – Held: Court should construct the provisions
harmoniously having regard to the context and the object of the
statute in which a provision appears, to make it meaningful – An
attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions,
so as to advance the remedy intended by the statute.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The disability pension has two elements:
disability element and the service element. The disability element
is in relation to the extent of disability suffered by an individual
whereas the service element is to be granted keeping in view of
rules and regulations. Service pension and service element are
synonymous. The expression service element is used in the case
of payment of disability pension whereas, service pension is used
for the pension payable on account of services rendered. No merit
found in the argument that a

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