U.O.I. AND ORS.versusBASHIR AHMED

                               U.0.1. AND ORS.                                     A
                                       v.
                               BASHIR AHMED

                                 MAY 2, 2006

             [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND TAR UN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]                          B


      Service Law:

       Pension-Entitlement to-Employee not completing requisite period of
service as per Regulations and certificate of service-Held: The employee not C
entitled to pension-Regulations for the Army, 1962-Para 134.

      Respondent was enrolled as sepoy in Army. He rendered service .for 9
years 7 months and 27 days. The period included reserve service for 2 years.
By Anny Instructions of I 976 the period of service required for entitlement       D
to pension was IS years with colours and 2 years in reserve. As such he was
not entitled to pension. Respondent filed Writ Petition for direction to
appellants to grant him pension. Single Judge as well as Division Bench of
High Court in Letters Patent Appeal, held the respondent entitled to the benefit
of pension. Review petition of appellants was dismissed. Hence.the present
appeals.                                                                            E
      Allowing the appeals, the Court

      HELD: I. The entitlement to pension is dependent upon the prescriptions
in the Army Instructions which are relatable to para 134 ofthe Regulations
for the Army 1962, which required the period of requisite service to be IS          p
years in colours and 2 years in reserve. (728-B]

        2. Though the Division Bench looked at the original certificate of
service and referred to the entry about rendition of IS years of reserve service,
it failed to notice that the entry on the face of it was absurd. Jn the certificate
of service itself it is clearly indicated that the date of.enrolment.is 9th January, G
1969 and the certificate of service was issued on 26th September, 1978. That
being so, the question of the respondent rendering more than IS years of
reserved service did not arise. (727-H; 728-A-B)


                                      725                                          H
    726                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4052-4053 of
    2004.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.2002 of the High Court of
    Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in LP.A. (OW) No. 217/2002.

B         Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Indra Sawhney and Anil Katiyar and Sushma Suri
    for the Appellants.

            P.D. Sharma for the Respondent.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c         ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the legality of
    orders passed by a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants and the review
    application in respect of the said order. The High Court by the impugned
    judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal upheld the view of learned Single
D   Judge holding that the respondent is entitled to pension.

            Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

          Respondent was enrolled as a Sepoy on 6. I. I969. On 1.7.1976 respondent
    made a declaration in writing to undergo reserve service liability of two years
E   after discharge from service.

           The request of the respondent for discharge from Army service on
    companionate grounds was accepted and he was discharged and his name
    was struck out from the strength on 6.9. I978. Thus he had rendered service
    for 9 years 7 months and 27 days in the Army which included some over stay
F   leave. With effect from 6.9. I980 the respondent ceased to have any reserve
    liability. As such, according to the appellants, the respondent did not qualify
    for any pension in terms of the applicable regulations. On 21.2.2000 respondent
    filed a writ petition for a direction to the appellants to grant pension. Counter
    affidavit was filed in June, 2000. Learned Single Judge who disposed of the
G   writ petition by order dated 28.2.200 I proceeded on the basis that no counter
    affidavit had been filed. Therefore, the assertion of the appellant that he had
    rendered 15 years of service including reserve service and was accepted on
    this ground alone it was held that the respondent was entitled to pension and
    other benefits. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by present appellants taking
    a positive stand that a counter affidavit had in fact been filed, the question
H
                                                                                     ---
               U.0.1.ANDORS. v. BASHIR AHMED [PASAY AT,J.]                   727

of the respondent rendering 15 years of service did not arise_a.,_J,~-~~-A
appointed in January, 1969 and had _be~n.di•ohnrgeaTn T97S and the last two
years service related to reserve service. He was not entitled to any pension
because he had not completed the requisite period of service. The Division
Bench referred to the certificate of service of the respondent and held that
the same indicated 15 years of reserved service and, therefore, he was entitled
to pension. An application for review was filed, which was rejected.            B
       In support of the appeals learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had clearly overlooked
the applicable instructions issued on the basis of the statutory _prescription.
By Anny instructions dated 29th December, 1964 the period of service required C
for entitlement to pension was indicated as I0 years service with the colours
and 5 years service in the reserve. These instructions were applicable when
the respondent was appointed. The said Anny instruction was modified by
Army Instruction dated 14th January, 1976. The period of requisite service
was changed to 15 years service with the colours and two years In thc-
reserve. Admittedly neither under the 1964 instructions nor the 1976 D
instructions, the respondent was entitled to any pension. The reserve liability
certificate issued on 1.7.1976 clearly indicates that the respondent wanted
discharge from service before completion of the colour service and in clear
tenns accepted the. liability to serve in the reserve for a period of two years.
It was, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the E
Division Bench should not have directed grant of pension.

      In response, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
Division Bench looked at the original certificate of service which in column
7 shows that the respondent had rendered service of 9 years I month and
21 days with colours and 15 years and 1 month I day in the reserve. That p
being so, view of the High Court did not suffer from any infirmity.

       We shall first refer to the certificate of service. The same was issued
on 26th September, 1978. Undisputedly the respondent was discharged with
effect from 6th September, 1978 and had been enrolled on 9th January, 1969.
His certificate of service itself indicates this position. Therefore, the question   G
of respondent rendering 15 years of reserved service by the date of issuance
of the certificate of service was an impossibility. It is fairly accepted by
learned counsel for the appellant that there was a mistake in mentioning
period; but the respondent cannot take any advantage of the mistake which
is clearly contrary to the factual position. Though the Division Bench looked
                                                                                     H
    728                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A at the ongnral •ortificate of service and referred to the entry about rendition
    of 15 years of reserve service, It f,.iJed to notice that the entry on the face
    of it was absurd. Undisputedly in the certificate of service itself at page 3 it
    is clearly indicated that the date of enrolment is 9th January, 1969 and the
    certificate of service was issued on 26th September, 1978. That being so, the
    question of the respondent rendering more than 15 years of reserved service
B   did not arise. In any event, the entitlement to pension is dependant upon the
    prescriptions in the Army Instructions which are relatable to para 134 of the
    Regulations for the Army 1962 (in short the 'Regulation'). The requisite
    parameters have been indicated above. There is another angle which appears
    to have been lost sighl uf by both the learned Single Judge and the Division
C   Bench. The respondent was discharged in 1978 and the writ application was
    filed after more than two decades. In any event, it is not necessary to deal
    with that aspect in detail as the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
    clearly erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to pension by
    computing the period of service. The appeals are allowed. Orders of the
    learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are set aside. The writ petition
D   is dismissed. There shall however, be no orders as to costs.

    K.K.T.                                                       Appeals allowed.