Bombay High Court
indiaversusEX 229835 corporal MA Inamdar
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The respondent is entitled to the special pension, and the Tribunal’s judgment is affirmed.
Summary
The petitioners, Union of India and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal's (AFT) judgment granting a special pension to ex‑Corporal M.A. Inamdar, who had completed 15 years of service (9 regular, 6 reserve). The petitioners argued that the Tribunal erred in applying Regulation 144 of the Air Force Pension Regulations, 1961, and sought to quash the order. The High Court examined Regulation 144, which authorises special pension at the President’s discretion for personnel not transferred to reserve and discharged under a government policy of reduction or re‑organisation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (T.S. Das v. Union of India, Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar) and earlier AFT decisions, the Court held that the Tribunal correctly applied the regulation and that the respondent satisfied all criteria for a special pension. The Court also rejected the petitioners' arguments on delay and laches, noting that pension rights constitute a continuing cause of action. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the Tribunal’s order left undisturbed.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent is entitled to a special pension under Regulation 144 of the Air Force Pension Regulations, 1961.
- Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions and Supreme Court precedents in granting the special pension.
- Whether the petitioners can set aside the Tribunal’s order on grounds of delay, laches, or arbitrary executive action.
Legislation cited
- Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — s. 14
Subjects
- special pension
- Armed Forces Tribunal
- Regulation 144
- Air Force Pension Regulations
- pension rights
- promissory estoppel
- delay and laches
- Article 226
- writ of certiorari
Judgment
Digitally signed
by MAYUR
MAYUR KONDIRAM
KONDIRAM ADANE
ADANE Date:
2026.09.22
14:24:06 +0530
21-WP-11710-2026(C).docx
Mayur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11710 OF 2026
Union Of India and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ex 229835 Corporal M.A. Inamdar ...Respondent
...
Adv. Anamika Malhotra, a/w Adv. Khushi Dhamdhere, for the
Petitioners.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. The instant Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, for the following substantive relief:
“b) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or anyother appropriate writ and order or direction in
the like nature, thereby quashing and setting aside the
impugned judgment dated 16th April 2025 passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application
No.60/2022.”
2. Before dealing with the challenge raised by the Petitioners, it
would be apposite to briefly mention that the present Respondent,
who was the Original Applicant before the Armed Forces Tribunal,
Mumbai (“Tribunal”), had preferred Original Application No. 60 of
2022 under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
Such Application was filed, inter alia, for the grant of pension on
1
21-WP-11710-2026(C).docx
the basis that he had completed 15 years of service, comprising 9
years of regular active service and 6 years of reserved service.
3. The record would indicate that at the final stage of hearing
before the Tribunal, learned counsel appearing for the Original
Applicant/present Respondent confined and limited the prayer to
the grant of special pension, which the Tribunal was confronted
with for determination.
4. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed the Judgment dated 16 th April
2025 (“Impugned Judgment”), which is assailed in this Writ
Petition.
5. Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners
has submitted that the Impugned Judgment erroneously holds that
the Respondent, having regard to Regulation 144 of the Pension
Regulations for the Air Force, 1961 (“Pension Regulations”), is
entitled to special pension, directing the Department/Respondent
therein to grant the same to the Respondent along with arrears.
Such Order is contrary to the statutory provisions as applicable
and therefore deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the Petition be
Allowed.
6. We have heard Ms. Malhotra and with her assistance, perused
the record. At the very outset, we find that the case of the
Respondent is to the effect that he is entitled to the grant of special
2
21-WP-11710-2026(C).docx
pension in accordance with Regulation 144 of Pension Regulations.
7. Contextually, it would be apposite to refer to Regulation 144 of
Pension Regulations, which reads thus:
“144. Special pension or gratuity may be granted, at the discretion
of the President, to individuals who are not transferred to the
reserve and are discharged in large numbers in pursuance of
Government’s policy--
(a) of reducing the strength of establishment of the Air Force;
or
(b) of re-organisation, which results in disbandment of any
units/formations.”
Upon perusal of the said regulation, evidently, it would apply
to the given factual matrix. We do not find any material on record
placed by the Petitioners to controvert such position. It is thus clear
that the grant of special pension to the Respondent would be
governed by the above provision.
8. Also, from the Impugned Judgment of the Tribunal, it is
apparent that the Tribunal has proceeded, inter alia, by relying on
the decision of the Supreme Court in T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of
India & Anr1. The Supreme Court therein was confronted with a
similar factual situation. Considering the same, the grant of special
pension was confirmed to sailors who were not transferred to the
Reserve and were discharged from service pursuant to the extant
government policy. We find the said decision to be clearly applicable
in the given facts, more particularly in light of Regulation 144 of
1
. 2016 SCC Online SC 1240.
3
21-WP-11710-2026(C).docx
Pension Regulations which is akin to Regulation 95 of Navy
(Pension) Regulations, 1964, in consideration before the Supreme
Court.
9. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of the
Principal Bench of the Tribunal in Cpl. Kandasamy T. v. Union of
India & Ors2. In this case, the claim for special pension was
considered in the context of the Applicant therein having completed
the requisite period of regular service but not having been
transferred to the Reserve. The Principal Bench of Tribunal relying
on the decision in T.S. Das (supra) held that the Applicant therein
was entitled to grant of special pension.
10. In the above context, a specific query was put to the learned
counsel for the Petitioners as to whether the aforesaid judgment
relied upon by the Tribunal, in the Impugned Judgment continues
to hold the field. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has answered
the said query in the positive.
11. We may gainfully refer to another decision of the Supreme
Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar 3. In the said
case, the Supreme Court duly recognised pension as a right and as
having the character of property, and held that such right could not
be taken away by executive action in an arbitrary manner.
2
. OA No. 1049 of 2019 with MA No. 1725 of 2019 decided on 12th May 2022.
3
. 1971 (2) SCC 330.
4
21-WP-11710-2026(C).docx
12. We find that the Tribunal has also considered the decision in
of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in Sadashiv Haribhau
Nargund and Others v. Union of India4, which was pressed into
service by the Respondent in support of his case. In the said case,
the contention of the Respondents therein that the Petitioners were
disentitled to pension on account of the manner of termination of
their service was rejected, inter alia, on the principle of promissory
estoppel. It was observed that the Petitioners therein had altered
their position in reliance upon the representation made by the
Government, regarding the terms of service and pensionary
benefits.
13. In the present case, the Applicant's discharge was specifically
recorded as being with effect from 4th April 1971 under the clause
“On completion of regular engagement” after completion of 10
years and 190 days of regular qualifying service. There is nothing
on record to indicate that the Respondent had sought or opted for
such discharge. Further, it is undisputed that he was not
transferred to the Air Force Reserve. The Tribunal, therefore, found
the conditions for consideration of special pension to be satisfied.
14. As far as the issue of delay and laches is concerned, the
Respondent was in fact, unilaterally discharged from service by the
Petitioners without him opting out from service. Accordingly, the
. T.A. No. 564 of 2010 (W.P. No. 6458 of 2009) decided on 12th January 2011.
4
5
21-WP-11710-2026(C).docx
Respondent is entitled to the grant of special pension as held by the
Supreme Court in T.S. Das (supra). In any event, the settled legal
position that grant of pension constitutes a continuing cause of
action is not disputed. Moreover, in the given facts and
circumstances, the claim of the Respondent for the grant of special
pension does not stand extinguished, nor can the doors be shut at
him in this regard, particularly, when the requirement/criteria for
the same are otherwise satisfied.
15. In view of the above, we find that the decisions discussed
(supra) would squarely apply to the given facts and we see no
reason/justification to take a different view by departing therefrom.
Accordingly, in our considered view, the Respondent is entitled to
special pension, as rightly held by the Tribunal. The Impugned
Judgment of the Tribunal, therefore, deserves no interference.
16. For the above reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is,
accordingly Dismissed.
17. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
6
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.