UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusV. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR

78                       [2019]
              SUPREME COURT     14 S.C.R. 78
                             REPORTS                     [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A                        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                       v.
                        V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR
                    (Civil Appeal Nos. 4714-4715 of 2012)
B                           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
C
     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
D    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
E
     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
F    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
G
     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
H
                                      78
   UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR                          79


disability element apart from service pension – Expression ‘service        A
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
                                                                           B
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        C
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
                                                                           D
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                 E
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                                    F

       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             G
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 as per Clause (1) of Regulation 105B,
Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, the service element is                   H
80            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A    admissible only if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) That
     discharge was on account of disability attributable to or aggravated
     by Naval Service. (ii) The individual is entitled to service pension
     only on completion of 15 years of service in terms of Regulation
     78. In terms of Regulation 101A of the Regulations, an individual
     who is placed in lower medical category and is discharged because
B
     no alternative employment suitable to his low medical category
     and an individual who at the time of his release under the Release
     Regulations is in a lower medical category than that in which he
     was recruited will be treated as invalided from service in terms
     of Clause 2 of Appendix V of the Regulations. Therefore, in terms
C    of such 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 a lower medical category, are entitled to disability pension.
     [Paras 11, 13 and 14] [88-E’ F-H; 89-A-C]
D
           1.2 Clause 1 and 2 of Regulation 105B are applicable to
     sailors who are discharged from service on completion of the
     period of engagement and who have earned only a service gratuity
     in terms of Clause (3) of the said Regulation. Clause 1 pertain to
     the grant of service pension in addition to the disability element.
E    Therefore, in terms of Clause 3, service element would be payable
     to an individual who has been paid service gratuity. The purpose
     of the Regulation 105B is to exclude dual payment of the service
     element of disability pension, when an individual is entitled to
     service pension as well. In the absence of such Regulation, an
F    individual would be entitled to disability pension including the
     service pension. Therefore, the service element cannot be
     granted again as part of disability pension. It is to avoid the
     payment of service element twice over. The Regulation 105B
     has not used the expression ‘on completion of qualifying service’.
     The interpretation as argued by the learned ASG leads to addition
G    of words in Regulation 105B which is not permissible as the
     Regulations have to be interpreted harmoniously and not by
     adding words to the Regulations. A person who has completed
     the period of engagement is entitled to disability element apart

H
   UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR                          81


from service pension. The expression ‘service pension’                     A
admissible is not restricted to the qualifying service provided
under Regulation 78. It is not for the Courts to remedy the defect
in the Statute. [Paras 15, 16] [89-D-H]
        1.3 By judicial interpretation, words cannot be added to a
statute, which would include the Rules, Regulations and                    B
Instructions issued under a Statute, as an excuse to give effect
to its plain meaning of the language of the regulations. If the
legislature has left a lacuna, it is not open to the Court to fill it on
some presumed intention of the legislature. But where the Courts
find that the words appear to have been accidentally omitted, or
if adopting a construction deprives certain existing words of all          C
meaning, it is permissible to supply additional words but should
not easily read words which have not been expressly enacted.
The 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           D
be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions, so as to advance
the remedy intended by the statute. Thus, it is not possible to
read completion of qualifying service in Regulation 105B of the
Regulations. In view of the principles of interpretation relating
to Casus Omissus, a reading of the Regulations does not lead to
an inference that the service element should be limited to an              E
individual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement.
Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation 105B when no such
qualification is provided in Regulation 105B. Still further, the
Regulation 107 providing service element in the event of an
individual who has not completed the qualifying service will               F
become otiose. A reading of all the regulations harmoniously and
keeping in view the object of grant of disability pension, the
interpretation which advances the object and purpose of the grant
of disability needs to be accepted being a beneficial provision for
a class of individuals who have suffered disability in the course of
duty. The quantification of disability pension in the cases of an          G
individual, who has not completed qualification service is dealt
with in Regulation 107. Sub-clause (b) comes into play where
the individual has not rendered sufficient service to qualify for

                                                                           H
82            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A    service pension. 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
B
     Regulation 78, Regulation 105B and Regulation 107 of the
     Regulations. The service pension is to be assessed on the basis
     of the minimum service pension laid down for an able individual
     of the same group in Regulation 107 of the Regulations. The
     appellants shall pay the arrears of service element preferably
C    within a period of four months from today in terms of directions
     issued by the Tribunal. [Paras 18-21and 23] [92-F-H; 93-A-G;
     94-C]
           T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2017) 4 SCC
           218 : [2016] 6 SCR 541– distinguished.
D          Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar AIR 1953
           SC 148 : [1953] SCR 533 ; Petroleum and Natural Gas
           Regulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Limited & Ors.
           (2015) 9 SCC 209 : [2015] 7 SCR 215 – relied on.
           Bhola Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2010)
E          15 SCC 126 – referred to.
                            Case Law Reference
     [2016] 6 SCR 541                distinguished           Para 7
     [1953] SCR 533                  relied on               Para 16
F
     [2015] 7 SCR 215                relied on               Para 17
     2010 (15) SCC 126               referred to             Para 22
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4714-
     4715 of 2012.
G           From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2010 and 12.04.2011
     of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi in T.A. No. 84 of 2010 and in I.A.
     No. 205 of 2010 in T.A. No. 84 of 2010.
           Madhavi Divan, ASG, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Sachin
     Sharma, Akshay Amritanshu, Arvind Kr. Sharma, B. V. Balaram Das,
H    Advs. for the Appellants.
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR                             83


        Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, M.V. Rama, Advs. for the Respondent.             A
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        HEMANT GUPTA, J.
      1. The challenge in the present appeals is to the orders passed by
the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi1 on 26th October,             B
2010 and April 12, 2011 holding that the respondent2 is entitled to service
element of disability pension from the date of discharge.
       2. The facts in brief are that the applicant was discharged on 30th
June, 1978 after completion of 10 years and 169 days of service. He
was in low medical category since 1970. He was granted disability              C
pension @50% on account of suffering from Viral Myocarditis post
discharge, but the applicant was denied the benefit of service element of
disability pension. It is the denial of this service element which led the
applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
      3. The stand of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the          D
applicant is not entitled to service element of disability pension as he
was released on expiry of engagement before completion of pensionable
qualifying service of 15 years and was not invalided out of service on
account of disability, though he has been paid service gratuity and death-
cum-retirement gratuity.
                                                                               E
       4. The learned Tribunal relied upon Regulation 101 of Navy
(Pension) Regulations, 19643 to hold that since applicant has been invalided
from service on account of disability, therefore, he is entitled to full
disability pension including the service element. The reliance was also
placed upon Regulation 107 of the Regulations which contemplates that
where the individual has not rendered sufficient service to qualify for        F
service pension, the personnel will be entitled to proportion of the minimum
service pension appropriate to the individual’s ranks and group. It is the
said order passed by the Tribunal which is the subject matter of challenge
in the present appeals.
      5. Ms. Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants    G
argued that the applicant was not boarded out of service on account of

1
  for short, ‘Tribunal’
2
  hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant’
3
  for short, ‘Regulations’
                                                                               H
84               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A    disability but on account of completion of the engagement. The learned
     ASG traced the history of the grant of disability pension. It is submitted
     that disability pension was initially granted when a member of the Armed
     Forces could not be retained in the Force on account of disability,
     attributed to or aggravated by military service. Such course was creating
     hardship to the personnel boarded out on account of injury suffered due
B
     to military service. Therefore, the concept of disability pension was
     introduced. The disability pension has two components i.e. service element
     and the disability element. The disability element is related to disability
     whereas; the service element is to be granted as per the rules and
     regulations applicable. The qualification service for earning pension is
C    15 years; therefore, an individual who has not rendered 15 years of
     qualifying service and was not boarded out on account of disability is not
     entitled to service element of pension.
            6. It is argued that Regulation 105B of the Regulations would be
     applicable if an individual is not invalided out of service on account of
D    disability and has not opted for continuation in the Armed Forces. The
     said Regulation provides that on completion of period of engagement,
     apart from service pension admissible which is on completion of 15 years
     of service, a disability element is also granted.
            7. It is argued that initially, the Regulations contemplated 10 years
E    of engagement with another 10 years as reservist. Therefore, an individual
     would not be entitled to pension merely upon completion of 10 years of
     active service but would become entitled to service pension upon
     completion of 15 years of service including 5 years as reservist. It is
     argued that such situation has undergone change when on 3 rd July, 1976,
     the Government of India contemplated 10 years as initial period of
F    engagement, with the option of re-engagement of the existing sailors on
     completion of 10 years of engagement. It is argued that the period of
     engagement in case of the applicant was 10 years approximately,
     therefore, he has not completed the qualifying service of 15 years in
     terms of Regulation 78 of the Regulations. Thus, he is not entitled to
G    service element as the same is payable only after completion of 15 years
     other than to an individual who is boarded out from service on account
     of disability. The reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court reported
     as T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.4 wherein, the Court held
     as under:
     4
         (2017) 4 SCC 218
H
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR                              85
                  [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

      “29. As aforesaid, on introducing the new policy on 3-7-1976, the         A
      Fleet Reserve was discontinued and instead the Sailors in service
      at the relevant time were given an option to continue in active
      service for a further term of 5 years. Some of the Sailors opted to
      continue till completion of 15 years, who, then became eligible for
      “service pension” having qualifying service.
                                                                                B
      30. The quintessence for grant of reservist pension, as per
      Regulation 92, is completion of the prescribed Naval and Reserve
      qualifying service of 10 years “each”. Merely upon completion of
      10 years of active service as a Sailor or for that matter continued
      beyond that period, but falling short of 15 years or qualifying
      Reserve Service, the Sailor concerned cannot claim benefit under          C
      Regulation 92 for grant of reservist pension. For, to qualify for the
      reservist pension, he must be drafted to the Fleet Reserve Service
      for a period of 10 years. In terms of Regulation 6 of the Indian
      Fleet Reserve Regulations, there can be no claim to join the Fleet
      Reserve as a matter of right. None of the applicants were drafted         D
      to the Fleet Reserve Service after completion of their active
      service. Hence, the applicants before the Tribunal, could not have
      claimed the relief of reservist pension. …”
       8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant supported
the order of the Tribunal to contend that Regulation 105B of the                E
Regulations was introduced to clarify that the benefit of disability element
who has completed the period of engagement shall be in addition to the
service pension. The provision was to grant benefit and not to deny the
benefit of the service element. It was inserted to avoid payment of
service element twice i.e. as part of disability pension and again as service
pension. In respect of an individual who has either been invalided out of       F
service or has completed less than 15 years of qualifying service for
pension, the disability pension including service element is computable
and payable in terms of Regulation 107 of the Regulations. Such
Regulation deals with an individual who has not rendered sufficient service
to qualify for service pension. The service element is granted in               G
proportion to the minimum service pension appropriate to an individual’s
rank and group, in which the number of his completed years of qualifying
service bears to 15, but in no case less than two-thirds of the minimum
service pension. Such Regulation would be rendered otiose, if the
argument of the appellants is to be accepted.
                                                                                H
86      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A    9. The relevant clauses from the pension Regulation read as under:
     “78. Minimum qualifying service for pension. - Unless otherwise
     provided, the minimum service which qualifies for service pension
     is fifteen years.
               xx                xx                          xx
B
     101. Conditions for the grant of disability pension. – Unless
     otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted
     to a person who is invalided from service on account of a disability
     which is attributable to or aggravated by service and is assessed
     at twenty per cent, or over.
C
     101A. Individuals discharged on account of their being permanently
     in low medical category. – Individuals who are placed in a lower
     medical category (other than ‘E’) permanently and who are
     discharged because no alternative employment suitable to their
     low medical category could be provided shall be deemed to have
D    been invalided from service for the purpose of the Rules laid down
     in Appendix V of these Regulations.
     101B. Reservists discharged on account of being placed in a low
     medical category. – (1) A reservist who is placed permanently in
     a lower medical category (other than ‘E’) and is discharged from
E    the Fleet Reserve on that account will be deemed to have been
     invalided out of service for the purpose of the rules laid down in
     Appendix ‘V’ of these regulations.
     (2) An individual who is found to be ineligible for the grant of
     disability pension shall be paid service gratuity as admissible under
F    regulation 89.
                xx               xx                     xx
     105B. Disability at the time of discharge. – (1) A sailor, who is
     discharged from service after he has completed the period of his
     engagement and is, at the time of discharge found to be suffering
G    from a disability attributable to or aggravated by naval service
     may at the discretion of the competent authority be granted in
     addition to the service pension admissible, a disability element as
     if he has been discharged on account of that disability.
                xx               xx                     xx
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR                        87
              [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

 (3) The provisions in sub-regulations (1) and (2) shall also apply   A
 to sailors discharged from service on completion of the period of
 their engagement and who have earned only a service gratuity.
            xx             xx                     xx
 107. Amount of disability pension. – In cases where the accepted
 degree of disablement is twenty per cent, or over, the monthly       B
 rates of disability pension consisting of service and disability
 elements, shall be as follows, namely:
   (1) Service element
   (a) Where the individual has       Service pension admissible
   rendered sufficient ser vice to    in accordance with his          C
   qualify for a service pension.     rank and group last held,
                                      and length of service.
   (b) Where the individual has not   (i) If the disability was
   rendered sufficient ser vice to    sustained while on flying
   qualify for service pension.       or parachute jumping duty
                                      in an aircraft or while
                                                                      D
                                      being carried on duty in an
                                      aircraft   under    proper
                                      authority, the minimum
                                      service              pension
                                      appropriate to his rank
                                      and group.
                                                                      E
                                      (ii) In all other cases, that
                                      proportion of the minimum
                                      service              pension
                                      appropriate       to      the
                                      individual’s rank and group
                                      which the number of his
                                      completed        years     of   F
                                      qualifying service bears to
                                      fifteen but in no case less
                                      than two-thirds of the
                                      minimum ser vice pension.

                                                                      G
 Provided that for the purpose of this clause, service rendered
 before the age of seventeen years shall be treated as qualifying
 service.
 Explanation. – The service element shall be assessed –
 (i) in the case of ordinary seaman or equivalent, on the basis of    H
88              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A          the minimum service pension laid down for able seaman or
           equivalent of the same group.
                       xx              xx                     xx
           Appendix V – Nature, Assessment and Attributability of Disability
           and Entitlement to Disability Pension.
B
           1.         xx               xx               xx
           2. Invalidment from service is a necessary condition for the grant
           of disability pension. An individual who at the time of his release
           under the Release Regulations is in a lower medical category
C          than that in which he was recruited will be treated as invalided
           from service. Sailors who are placed permanently in a medical
           category other than ‘A’ and are discharged because no alternative
           employment suitable to their low medical category can be provided
           as well as those who having been retained in alternative
           employment but are discharged before the completion of their
D          engagement will be deemed to have bene invalided out of service.”
            10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no
     merit in the present appeals.
             11. The disability pension has two elements: disability element
     and the service element. The disability element is in relation to the
E
     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.
F
            12. In the present case, we are concerned with the situation where
     the individual has completed his period of engagement in the low medical
     category but not the qualifying service for pension in terms of Regulation
     78 of the Regulations. The question is whether the applicant is entitled
     to service element of disability pension corresponding to the number of
G    years he has put in the service of Navy.
            13. We do not find any merit in the argument that as per Clause
     (1) of Regulation 105B, the service element is admissible only if the
     following conditions are satisfied:

H
   UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR                              89
                 [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

      (i) That discharge was on account of disability attributable to or       A
aggravated by Naval Service.
       (ii) The individual is entitled to service pension only on completion
of 15 years of service in terms of Regulation 78.
        14. In terms of Regulation 101A of the Regulations, an individual
who is placed in lower medical category and is discharged because no           B
alternative employment suitable to his low medical category and an
individual who at the time of his release under the Release Regulations
is in a lower medical category than that in which he was recruited will
be treated as invalided from service in terms of Clause 2 of Appendix V
of the Regulations. Therefore, in terms of such Regulations, individuals       C
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 a lower medical category, are entitled to disability pension.
       15. Clause 1 and 2 of Regulation 105B are applicable to sailors         D
who are discharged from service on completion of the period of
engagement and who have earned only a service gratuity in terms of
Clause (3) of the said Regulation. Clause 1 pertain 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.                                                              E

       16. We find that the purpose of the Regulation 105B is to exclude
dual payment of the service element of disability pension, when an
individual is entitled to service pension as well. In the absence of such
Regulation, an individual would be entitled to disability pension including
the service pension. Therefore, the service element cannot be granted          F
again as part of disability pension. It is to avoid the payment of service
element twice over. The Regulation 105B has not used the expression
‘on completion of qualifying service’. The interpretation as argued by
the learned ASG leads to addition of words in Regulation 105B which is
not permissible as the Regulations have to be interpreted harmoniously         G
and not by adding words to the Regulations. A person who has completed
the period of engagement is entitled to disability element apart from
service pension. The expression ‘service pension’ admissible is not
restricted to the qualifying service provided under Regulation 78. It is
not for the Courts to remedy the defect in the Statute. The reference
                                                                               H
90               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A    may be made to an early judgment of this Court reported as Nalinakhya
     Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar5, wherein it was held as under:-
              “9. …It must always be borne in mind, as said by Lord Halsbury
              in Commissioner for Special Purposes of Income
              Tax v. Pemsel [LR (1891) AC 531 at p 549], that it is not competent
B             to any court to proceed upon the assumption that the legislature
              has made a mistake. The Court must proceed on the footing that
              the legislature intended what it has said. Even if there is some
              defect in the phraseology used by the legislature the court cannot,
              as pointed out in Crawford v. Spooner [6 Moo PC 1: 4 MIA 179]
              , aid the legislature’s defective phrasing of an Act or add and
C             amend or, by construction, make up deficiencies which are left in
              the Act. Even where there is a casus omissus, it is, as said by
              Lord Russell of Killowen in Hansraj Gupta v. Official
              Liquidator of Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co.,
              Ltd. [(1933) LR 60 IA 13; AIR (1933) PC 63] , for others than
D             the courts to remedy the defect. In our view it is not right to give
              to the word “decree” a meaning other than its ordinary accepted
              meaning and we are bound to say, in spite of our profound respect
              for the opinions of the learned Judges who decided them, that the
              several cases relied on by the respondent were not correctly
              decided.”
E
           17. In another judgment reported as Petroleum and Natural Gas
     Regulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Limited & Ors.6, this Court
     held:
              “35. After so stating the Court has referred to the observations
F             made by Lord Diplock in Duport Steels Ltd. [Duport Steels
              Ltd. v. Sirs, (1980) 1 WLR 142 : (1980) 1 All ER 529 (HL)] wherein
              it has been ruled thus: (All ER p. 541h-j)
                  “… the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from
                  the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its
G                 intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it.
                  Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and
                  unambiguous it is not for the Judges to invent fancied
                  ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its

     5
         AIR 1953 SC 148
     6
H        (2015) 9 SCC 209
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR                            91
              [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

    plain meaning because they themselves consider that the               A
    consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even
    unjust or immoral. In controversial matters such as are
    involved in industrial relations there is room for differences of
    opinion as to what is expedient, what is just and what is morally
    justifiable. Under our Constitution it is Parliament’s opinion on
                                                                          B
    these matters that is paramount.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)
 36. Recently, in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular
 Diseases [(2014) 2 SCC 62 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 721] , while
 interpreting Section 468 CrPC, the Court has opined: (SCC p. 99,         C
 para 45)
    “45. It is argued that a legislative casus omissus cannot be
    supplied by judicial interpretation. It is submitted that to read
    Section 468 CrPC to mean that the period of limitation as period
    within which a complaint/charge-sheet is to be filed, would           D
    amount to adding words to Sections 467 and 468. It is further
    submitted that if the legislature has left a lacuna, it is not open
    to the court to fill it on some presumed intention of the
    legislature. Reliance is placed on Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing
    Society [Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj
    Developers, (2003) 6 SCC 659] , Bharat Aluminium [(2012)              E
    9 SCC 552 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 810] and several other
    judgments of this Court where doctrine of casus omissus is
    discussed. In our opinion, there is no scope for application of
    doctrine of casus omissus to this case. It is not possible to hold
    that the legislature has omitted to incorporate something which       F
    this Court is trying to supply. The primary purpose of
    construction of the statute is to ascertain the intention of the
    legislature and then give effect to that intention. After
    ascertaining the legislative intention as reflected in the Forty-
    second Report of the Law Commission and the Report of the
    JPC, this Court is only harmoniously construing the provisions        G
    of Chapter XXXVI along with other relevant provisions of the
    Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the legislative intent
    and to ensure that its interpretation does not lead to any
    absurdity. It is not possible to say that the legislature has kept
    a lacuna which we are trying to fill up by judicial interpretative    H
92             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A              process so as to encroach upon the domain of the legislature.
               The authorities cited on doctrine of casus omissus are, therefore,
               not relevant for the present case.”
                               xx                xx                xx
           38. We must take note of certain situations where the Court in
B          order to reconcile the relevant provision has supplied words and
           the exercise has been done to advance the remedy intended by
           the statute. In Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India [(1991) 2
           SCC 87] , a three-Judge Bench perceiving the anomaly, held: (SCC
           p. 98, para 19)
C              “19. True it is not permissible to read words in a statute which
               are not there, but ‘where the alternative lies between either
               supplying by implication words which appear to have been
               accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprives
               certain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supply
D              the words’ (Craies Statute Law, 7th Edn., p. 109). Similar are
               the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan
               Lal Sowcar [(1988) 2 SCC 513 at pp. 524-25] where it was
               observed that the court construing a provision should not easily
               read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but
               having regard to the context in which a provision appears and
E              the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted
               the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it
               meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile
               the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by
               the statute. (See Siraj-ul-Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board
F              of Waqf [AIR 1959 SC 198 : 1959 SCR 1287].)”
            18. It, thus, transpires that by judicial interpretation, words cannot
     be added to a statute, which would include the Rules, Regulations and
     Instructions issued under a Statute, as an excuse to give effect to its
     plain meaning of the language of the regulations. If the legislature has
G    left a lacuna, it is not open to the Court to fill it on some presumed
     intention of the legislature. But where the Courts find that the words
     appear to have been accidentally omitted, or if adopting a construction
     deprives certain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supply
     additional words but should not easily read words which have not been
     expressly enacted. The Court should construct the provisions
H    harmoniously having regard to the context and the object of the statute
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR                           93
                     [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

in which a provision appears, to make it meaningful. An attempt must            A
always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions, so as to advance
the remedy intended by the statute. Thus, it is not possible to read
completion of qualifying service in Regulation 105B of the Regulations.
      19. In view of the principles of interpretation relating to Casus
Omissus, we find that a reading of the Regulations does not lead to an          B
inference that the service element should be limited to an individual who
has completed minimum 15 years of engagement. Regulation 78 cannot
be read into Regulation 105B when no such qualification is provided in
Regulation 105B.
       20. Still further, the Regulation 107 providing service element in       C
the event of an individual who has not completed the qualifying service
will become otiose. A reading of all the regulations harmoniously and
keeping in view the object of grant of disability pension, we find that the
interpretation which advances the object and purpose of the grant of
disability needs to be accepted being a beneficial provision for a class of
individuals who have suffered disability in the course of duty.                 D

       21. The quantification of disability pension in the cases of an
individual, who has not completed qualification service is dealt with in
Regulation 107. Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Regulation 107 deals
with the situation where the individual has rendered sufficient service to
qualify for a service pension i.e. 15 years of service in terms of Regulation   E
78. However, sub-clause (b) comes into play where the individual has
not rendered sufficient service to qualify for service pension. 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         F
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 of the Regulations.
The service pension is to be assessed on the basis of the minimum service
pension laid down for an able individual of the same group in Regulation
107 of the Regulations.                                                         G
       22. Learned counsel for the appellants refers to an order passed
by this Court in Bhola Singh v. Union of India & Ors.7. We find that
this Court has not referred to Regulation 105B as well as Regulation 107
7
    Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2002 decided on 10 th August, 2010.                H
94             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 14 S.C.R.


A    of the Regulations to maintain an order of the High Court to deny service
     element of pension to an individual who has completed the initial fixed
     period of 10 years. Since the appeal has been decided without any
     reference to statutory regulations, we find that the reliance of the
     appellants on the said order is not helpful to the arguments advanced.
     We find that the reliance on the judgment of this court T.S. Das is not
B
     tenable for the reason that it was not the case of grant of disability
     pension. It was the case of grant of special pension.
            23. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeals,
     the same are dismissed. The appellants shall pay the arrears of service
     element preferably within a period of four months from today in terms
C    of directions issued by the Tribunal.


     Divya Pandey                                              Appeals dismissed.


D




E




F




G




H