Supreme Court of India
SQN. LDR. (RETD.) NAVTEJ SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 1157
- Decided
- 5 December 2018
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- UDAY UMESH LALIT
Holding
The marriage‑permission policy applies only to serving officers, and a retired officer’s spouse and children are entitled to post‑retirement benefits irrespective of the lack of prior permission for the marriage.
Summary
Squadron Leader Navtej Singh, an Indian Air Force officer, applied for permission to marry a Canadian immigrant in 2008 but contracted the marriage without waiting for the required approval. He was later invalidated from service on medical grounds in November 2009. After his retirement, he sought to have his wife and daughter listed in his service certificate and to receive post‑retirement benefits, but the Armed Forces Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that the marriage was contracted without permission. The Supreme Court observed that the marriage‑permission policy applies only to serving officers and that no disciplinary action or express rejection was taken against the appellant. Since the appellant was no longer governed by the Indian Air Force Act, the Court held that his spouse and child are entitled to the same benefits as those of a retired officer. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to include the wife and daughter in the service certificate and to extend all applicable post‑retirement benefits. The appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a marriage contracted by a serving Air Force officer with a foreign national without prior permission disqualifies the officer’s spouse from post‑retirement benefits after the officer’s retirement.
- Whether the policy requiring prior permission and the 120‑day deemed‑consent provision applies to officers who are no longer in service.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to have his wife and daughter recorded in his service certificate and to receive benefits of a retired officer’s family.
Legislation cited
Subjects
post‑retirement benefitsmarriage to foreign nationalArmed Forces Tribunalservice certificatedeemed consentmilitary lawinvalidated officerdisciplinary action
Judgment
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 665 665
SQN. LDR. (RETD.) NAVTEJ SINGH A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11876-11877 of 2018)
DECEMBER 05, 2018 B
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Armed Forces: Post-retirement benefits – Entitlement to, to
the spouse and children of a retired officer – On facts, appellant-
C
Air Force officer invalidated out of service on medical grounds –
While in service applied to Director, Air Headquarter seeking
permission to marry Canadian immigrant – Appellant without waiting
for the express permission or the expiry of 120 days, contracted the
marriage – Appellant then applied for ex-post facto permission for
marriage, which was not considered at all – Meanwhile, the appellant D
was released from Indian Air Force – Thereafter, the appellant filed
an application to the Air Headquarter to include the names of his
family members in the Certificate of Service and issuance of ECHS
cards and the same was rejected – Tribunal also rejected the
application holding that since the marriage was contracted by the
E
appellant without any permission, he was not entitled to take benefit
of his marriage with the foreign national – On appeal, held: If an
officer after his release or retirement could validly contract the
marriage with a foreign national, the spouse would therefore be
entitled to all the benefits including medical or hospital facilities or
club membership or canteen facilities etc. – It cannot be said that F
the appellant, at least after his release from the Air Force, would be
disentitled – Respondent directed to include the names of the wife
and daughter of the appellant in the Service Certificate from the
date of his release or retirement and extend to the wife and the
daughter of the appellant all such benefits which a spouse and
G
children of a retired officer would be entitled – Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007 – s.30 r/w s.31(2).
H
665
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The underlying idea behind the policy is that in
case a person governed by the provisions of Indian Air Force
Act, 1950 intends to contract marriage with a foreign national,
requisite intimation in that behalf is required to be made and
B appropriate permission is also required to be obtained. As a part
of the exercise, the foreign national with whom the marriage is to
be contracted may be required to give up the original citizenship
and acquire citizenship of India. If there be any infraction or
violation of the mandate of the requirements, the concerned
officer could be visited with penalty including dismissal or removal
C from service. The policy has well laid and designed procedure
including the timelines and the time limit of 120 days within which
the authorities are required to apply their mind and consider the
application seeking permission. In case nothing is heard within
120 days, the policy incorporates the concept of deemed consent
D or permission. All these requirements are in respect of those
governed by the Indian Air Force Act, 1950 that is to say the
serving officials. [Para 19][674-B-E]
1.2 In the instant case, even if it is to be proceeded on the
footing that the marriage was contracted without the permission
E and as such there was infraction on part of the appellant, no
disciplinary action was initiated or taken against him nor was any
express rejection of his request intimated to him at any stage.
His initial application was dated 27.10.2008 and he was invalidated
out of service with effect from 18.11.2009 on medical grounds
and not for any infraction of aforesaid policy. As a matter of fact,
F the department did not respond for more than 120 days in the
matter. [Para 20][674-F]
1.3 The appellant is no longer in service with Indian Air
Force and the respondents have showed on its own that the
appellant has ceased to be subject to Indian Air Force Act. As
G regards what advantages and benefits a retired service person
including his family would be entitled to, the wife may in certain
cases be entitled to pension, in the event of death of the officer
and the family including the spouse would be entitled to benefits
such as canteen facilities and membership of officers club and
H such other benefits. The respondents were asked that if an officer
SQN. LDR. (RETD.) NAVTEJ SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 667
after his release or retirement wished to contract marriage with A
a foreign national was there any restriction or prohibition under
any of the policy documents in force. The counsel could not lay
his hands on any such policy or point out any such provision. The
stand of the respondents thus is clear that the policy in question
is aimed at regulating certain aspects while the officers are in
B
service. If an officer after his release or retirement could,
therefore, validly contract the marriage with a foreign national
and the spouse would theref ore be entitled to all the
benefits including medical or hospital facilities or club
membership or canteen facilities etc., it does not stand
to reason why the appellant, at least after his release from C
the Indian Air Force, should be disentitled in that behalf.
[Para 21][674-G-H; 675-A-C]
1.4 The respondents are directed to include the names of
the wife and daughter of the appellant in the Service Certificate
at least from the date of his release or retirement and direct the D
respondents to extend to the wife and the daughter of the appellant
all such benefits which a spouse and children of a retired officer
would be entitled. [Para 22][675-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11876-
11877 of 2018. E
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2015 in OA No. 420
of 2013 and dated 03.07.2015 in RA No. 19 of 2015 in OA No. 420 of
2013 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv. for the Appellant.
F
Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr Adv., Harish Pandey, Akshay Amritanshu,
Varun Ahuja, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Delay condoned.
2. These appeals under Section 30 read with Section 31(2) of the G
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (“The Act”, for short) are directed
against (i) judgment and order dated 24.02.2015 in O.A. No.420/2013
and (ii) judgment and order dated 03.07.2015 in Review Application
No.19/2015 in O.A. No.420/2013; passed by the Tribunal1.
1
Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A 3. In aforesaid O.A. No.420/2013, the appellant had challenged
the order invalidating him from service on medical grounds and had prayed
for directions that he be promoted to the post of Wing Commander and
that the names of his family members (wife and daughter) be recorded
in the service record and allow all benefits due to them. However, while
issuing notice on 08.01.2016 the matter was limited by this Court to the
B
question whether “marriage of the petitioner with Meenu Sangha can be
recognized for purposes of grant of post-retirement benefits, medical
facilities and family pension etc.” Accordingly leave to appeal is granted
under Section 31(2) of the Act in respect of the issue in question.
4. The appellant after completing training from Air Force
C Academy, Hyderabad, was granted commission in the rank of Pilot
Officer in the branch of Flying Navigation of Indian Air Force with effect
from 16.12.1995. Thereafter, he received promotions in due course of
time and was finally promoted to the rank of Squadron Leader.
5. Sometime in the year 2001 the appellant was diagnosed of
D Dysthemia and Alcohol Dependence Syndrome and Primary
Hypothyroidism and since then was put in low medical category. A
Medical Board was constituted to consider his medical condition and on
27.02.2009 the Medical Board found him to be unfit for all flying duties.
The appellant was given the option of being transferred to the
E Administrative Branch but expressed his unwillingness. In the
circumstances, Invaliding Medical Board was constituted to consider
the case which declared that the appellant be invalidated out of service
on medical grounds. The aforesaid recommendation of the Invaliding
Medical Board was approved and the appellant was invalidated out of
service with effect from 18.11.2009 in the rank of Squadron Leader.
F
6. While in service, on 27.10.2008 the appellant had applied to the
Director, Directorate of IMINT, Air Headquarters (VB), New Delhi,
seeking permission to marry. It was stated as under:
“I may be permitted to marry Ms. Meenu Sangha D/o. Col. Jagjeet
G Singh (Retd.). My fiancée is holding an Indian passport with a
Canadian immigrant visa and is working with Toronto Dominion
Canadian Trust bank. The bank is not supported/funded by the
Canadian government.”
According to the appellant, he was orally allowed to proceed with
marriage and as such he contracted marriage on 19.12.2008.
H
SQN. LDR. (RETD.) NAVTEJ SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 669
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
7. Air Force Order (AFO 14 of 2000) dated 09.06.2000 as A
amended from time to time dealt with the subject “Marriage – IAF
Personnel” and paragraphs 5 to 9) of this order dealt with “Marriage
with Foreign National”. For the present purposes, Air Force order (AFO
04 of 2009) dated 20.03.2009 was the relevant policy document when
the issue arose for consideration. Paragraphs 2,7,8,9,10,11 and 16(c) of
B
said Air Force Order dated 20.03.2009 are to the following effect:
“2. Prior permission of the competent authority is mandatory for
all air-warriors before contracting marriage as indicated in paras
3 to 9 below. Application to marry can only be submitted if the
age on the date of marriage is minimum 21 years (completed) for
male and minimum 18 years (completed) for female. The C
provisions of this AFO would apply for all cases of re-marriage.
………
7. Provisions regarding marriage with a foreign national are
contained in Chapter V of IAP 3904. Marriage with a foreign D
national is not to be contracted without the prior sanction of the
AOP. However, nationals of Bhutan will be deemed to be Indian
nationals for this purpose.
8. An air-warrior intending to marry a foreign national is to submit
an application as per proforma given at Appendix ‘C’. Application E
complete in all respects is to be forwarded through proper channel,
so as to reach Air HQ (DPS) at least three months before the
proposed date of marriage.
9. Application for marriage with a foreign national is to be
accompanied in all cases with the following: F
(a) Three copies of recent passport size photo graph of the
person with whom marriage is intended
(b) A separate application (in quadruplicate) seeking
premature retirement or release from service on personal
grounds. G
(c) An undertaking from the air-warrior to the effect that
he will pay the training cost, if his or her spouse refuses
to acquire Indian citizenship or willfully delays acquisition
of Indian citizenship.
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A (d) A written undertaking from the foreign national to the
effect that he/she will renounce his/her original nationality
and accept Indian citizenship as and when Indian
citizenship Act 1955 permits him or her to do so. This
will be on an affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper.
B 10. The formats of the PR application and the undertaking to be
given by the air-warrior as well as the foreign national are given
in Appendix ‘C’, ‘E’ & ‘F’ respectively to this Order.
11. If an air-warrior contracts marriage with a foreign national
without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority, he/
C she would be liable for disciplinary action or administrative action
for dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement from service, as
considered appropriate by the competent authority. Cases with
sufficient documentary proof of such violations in respect of
officers and warrant ranks are to be forwarded to Air HQ/Deptt
of JAG (Air) after vetting by CJA at Comd HQ for initiation of
D disciplinary administrative action. Command HQ may take
necessary action in respect of airmen of the rank of Sgt and below
[including NCs (E)].
………
E 16(c). Application for marriage with foreign nationals will also be
processed as mentioned in sub-para (b) above. As per para 1(i)
of COI letter No.20(38)/2001/D(Coord) dated 12th July, 2002, “all
requests of the members of the Armed Forces for permission to
marry a foreign national will have to be processed within 120
days. If such a request is not finalized within the period of 120
F days, the consent will be deemed to have been given.” Therefore,
such cases are to be given utmost importance and processed
expeditiously within the stipulated timeframe.”
8. On 22.09.2009 the wife of the appellant had submitted an
application to relinquish Canadian Immigrant Status. In November, 2010,
G the wife of the appellant left her job and joined the appellant in India to
look after the appellant. As the appellant could not recover, he moved to
Canada for further treatment. While the couple was in Canada, they
were blessed with a daughter on 03.10.2011. After his condition
recovered, the appellant returned back to India with his wife and daughter.
On 12.06.2013, the appellant applied to the Director, Directorate of Air
H
SQN. LDR. (RETD.) NAVTEJ SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 671
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
Veteran, Air Headquarters to include the names of his family members A
in the Certificate of Service and issuance of ECHS cards. According
to the appellant, on 19.06.2013, permission was granted by the Joint
Director to issue the Certificate as prayed for but the permission was
later withdrawn on instructions of DPO, Air Headquarters on 16.07.2013.
9. In these circumstances, the appellant filed O.A.No.420/2013 B
submitting that his medical condition was attributable/aggravated by
conditions of service and prayed for the relief and directions as stated
above.
10. The respondents filed affidavit in opposition submitting inter
alia as under: C
“7. That the applicant applied for permission for marriage on 27
Oct 2008. AFO 14/2000 and AFO 04/2009 lays down the QRs of
marriage with foreign nationals. His fiancée was holding an Indian
passport with a Canadian immigration visa and was working with
Toronto Dominion Canadian Trust Bank. Since the applicant had D
not submitted desired mandatory papers along with the application
and the fiancée of the applicant was not fulfilling the QRs as laid
down by AFO 04/09. The applicant was informed to submit
necessary documentary evidence before his said application could
be processed.
E
8. That from the available records and a draft CoS submitted by
the applicant, it is clear that on the day of Invalidment i.e. 18 Nov
09, the name of Ms. Meenu Sanga was not mentioned in the official
records as wife in draft Certificate of Service, signed by him.
The name of his wife did not even appear in Certificate of Service
(CoS) issued to him at the time of Invalidment. F
9. That the applicant had informed the AF authorities on 15 Jan
2009 that he got married with Ms. Meenu Sanga on 19 Dec 2008.
As the applicant had not submitted requisite documents in time,
his case for ex-post facto sanction for marriage with foreign national
was not processed by the concerned directorate.” G
11. The Tribunal did not accept the case that the medical condition
of the appellant was attributable to or was aggravated by conditions of
service. It however held that the appellant had 30% disability which
was to be rounded off to 50% and consequently was entitled to disability
H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A pension @ 50% with interest @ 12% per annum. It however rejected
the case that the appellant was entitled to promotion as claimed. It was
also held that since the marriage was contracted by the appellant without
any permission, he was not entitled to take benefit of his marriage with
the foreign national. The Tribunal thus partly allowed O.A.No.420/2013
by its judgment and order dated 24.02.2015.
B
12. The appellant thereafter filed Review Application No.19/2015
seeking review on the grounds that the appellant had applied for ex-post
facto sanction of marriage on 15.01.2009 which was duly recommended
by Section Commander and Air Officer Commanding. It was further
stated that in terms of AFO 14/2000 the respondents had to process the
C application within 120 days and as there was complete failure on their
part, in terms of said AFO there would be deemed consent. This review
application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 03.07.2015.
13. The aforesaid judgment and orders dated 24.02.2015 and
03.07.2015 are under challenge in this appeal. After issuance of notice
D the pleadings were exchanged. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondents following assertions were made:
“That another application dated 01.10.2009 was subsequently
received from the Appellant requesting for ex-post facto sanction
for marriage already contracted along with an undertaking from
E the lady, dated 22.09.2009, in which she has stated that, subsequent
to marriage with the Appellant, she would relinquish her Canadian
immigration status; meaning thereby, that after marriage in Dec.,
2008, the lady had not relinquished her Canadian immigrant status
even as on 22.09.2009. … … …”
F ………
That in the meantime, his case for ex-post facto sanction for
marriage was submitted for consideration of the competent
authority (AOP), who on 23.11.2009 directed that “the spouse
should relinquish her Canadian immigrant status etc. before
G approval of ex-post facto sanction for marriage”. The directions
of the AOP were conveyed to HQ EAC on 01.12.2009. HQ EAC
vide signal No. PS/471 dated 08.12.2009 informed that the officer
had already proceeded on release from the IAF on medical grounds
w.e.f. 18.11.2009. In the light of the release of the officer from
the IAF already having occurred and the Appellant was no longer
H
SQN. LDR. (RETD.) NAVTEJ SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 673
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, the matter relating to his A
application for grant of ex-post facto sanction with Ms. Meenu
Sangha, an Indian national holding Canadian immigration visa, did
not merit being pursued further.”
14. We heard learned counsel for the parties at length who took
us through the relevant documents and record. B
15. The assertions made in the counter affidavit, as extracted
hereinabove, indicate that though the application was made by the
appellant for ex-post facto sanction for marriage, it was not considered
since, in the meantime, the appellant was released from the Indian Air
Force on medical grounds and as such was no longer subject to the Air C
Force Act, 1950.
16. The facts on record indicate that:
i) The appellant intended to marry Ms. Meenu Sangha daughter
of Colonel Jagjeet Singh (Retd.) holding an Indian passport but
working with Toronto Dominion Canadian Trust Bank with D
Canadian immigrant visa.
ii) It is a common ground that in terms of the relevant policy, a
serving officer would be required to obtain permission before any
marriage with a foreign national could be contracted.
E
iii) On 27.10.2008 the appellant applied to the Directorate seeking
permission to marry.
iv) According to the relevant policy document the marriage could
not be contracted without requisite permission to marry and in
case no communication was received from the Directorate for
F
120 days, there would be deemed consent and permission.
v) The appellant without waiting for the express permission or the
expiry of 120 days, did contract the marriage on 19.12.2008.
vi) Any violation on part of the officer of the mandate the
concerned policy could visit him with the possibility of departmental G
action including dismissal or removal from service.
17. In the present case neither there was any action taken against
the appellant for infraction of the mandatory requirement of the policy
nor there was any express communication rejecting his request seeking
permission. As a matter of fact, there was no communication at all H
within 120 days.
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
A 18. After having contracted the marriage, the appellant also applied
for ex-post facto permission for marriage. However, said application
was not considered at all as, in the meantime, the appellant was released
from Indian Air Force and ceased to be governed by the provisions of
the Indian Air Force Act, as asserted in the counter affidavit.
B 19. It is in this factual backdrop that the issue in question needs to
be considered. The underlying idea behind the policy is that in case a
person governed by the provisions of Indian Air Force Act, 1950 intends
to contract marriage with a foreign national, requisite intimation in that
behalf is required to be made and appropriate permission is also required
to be obtained. As a part of the exercise, the foreign national with whom
C the marriage is to be contracted may be required to give up the original
citizenship and acquire citizenship of India. If there be any infraction
or violation of the mandate of the requirements, the concerned officer
could be visited with penalty including dismissal or removal from service.
The policy has well laid and designed procedure including the timelines
D and the time limit of 120 days within which the authorities are required
to apply their mind and consider the application seeking permission. In
case nothing is heard within 120 days, the policy incorporates the concept
of deemed consent or permission. All these requirements are in respect
of those governed by the Indian Air Force Act, 1950 that is to say the
serving officials.
E
20. In the present case, even if we are to proceed on the footing
that the marriage was contracted without the permission and as such
there was infraction on part of the appellant, no disciplinary action was
initiated or taken against him nor was any express rejection of his request
intimated to him at any stage. His initial application was dated 27.10.2008
F and he was invalidated out of service with effect from 18.11.2009 on
medical grounds and not for any infraction of aforesaid policy. As a
matter of fact, the department did not respond for more than 120 days in
the matter.
21. In any event of the matter, what is relevant for the present
G purposes is the fact that the appellant is no longer in service with Indian
Air Force and on the respondents’ own showing he has ceased to be
subject to Indian Air Force Act. During the course of hearing we asked
the learned counsel for the respondents as to what advantages and
benefits a retired service person including his family would be entitled
H to. We have been given to understand that the wife may in certain cases
SQN. LDR. (RETD.) NAVTEJ SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 675
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
be entitled to pension, in the event of death of the officer and the family A
including the spouse would be entitled to benefits such as canteen facilities
and membership of officers club and such other benefits. We further
asked the learned counsel for the respondents that if an officer after his
release or retirement wished to contract marriage with a foreign national
was there any restriction or prohibition under any of the policy documents
B
in force. The learned counsel could not lay his hands on any such policy
or point out any such provision. The stand of the respondents thus is
clear that the policy in question is aimed at regulating certain aspects
while the officers are in service. If an officer after his release or
retirement could, therefore, validly contract the marriage with a foreign
national and the spouse would therefore be entitled to all the benefits C
including medical or hospital facilities or club membership or canteen
facilities etc., it does not stand to reason why the appellant, at least after
his release from the Indian Air Force, should be disentitled in that behalf.
22. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we therefore direct
the respondents to include the names of the wife and daughter of the D
appellant in the Service Certificate at least from the date of his release
or retirement and direct the respondents to extend to the wife and the
daughter of the appellant all such benefits which a spouse and children
of a retired officer would be entitled.
23. The appeals stand allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs. E
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "post‑retirement benefits"Sign in to search