ANUJ KUMAR DEY AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                       ANUJ KUMAR DEY AND ANR.                                      A
                                   v.
                        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                               NOVEMBER 28, 1996

                          [J.S. VERMA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]                            B

          Service Law :
                                  ..,
           The Navy Act-1957-Section 3(20), ( 16) and 17, Sections 9, 10, II, 12,
    13, (16), 17, and 184-Navy (Pension) Regulations 1964-Regulations 2(1),         C
    69(2), 78, 79, 261, 290 and 291-Period of service computation of-Period of
    training as an Artificer Apprentice-Whether to be counted for the qualifying
    period for pensio1t-Held, in the facts of the case the appellant even during
    the period he was working as Artificer Apprentice was in the service of Navy
    as a Sai/o,-Hence, entitled to count the period of training for purposes of
    pension.                                                                        D
          The appellant was enrolled in Indian Navy as Artificer Apprentice
    on 2.8.71. After a period of training for four years, he was advanced to
    Electrical Artificer. After enrollment as apprentice, he was administered
    oath, he was receiving pay during the training period. While giving Badge       E
    of Good Conduct to the appellant, the respondent treated the period of
    training as period of service. The appellant was released from service on
    31.1.1988 and in the Discharge Certificate also the training period was
    treated as period of service.

          After release from the service, the appellant was not granted pen-        F
    sionary benefit on the ground that he has not completed qualifying period
    of pension. Since the training period cannot be counted as service period.

          The appellant claiming pensionary benefit filed writ petition before
    High Court which held that the training period could not be counted as
    qualifying period of pension. Hence this appeal.                                G
          Allowing this appeal, this Court
•
          HELD : 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court was in error in
    holding that the period of four years when the appellant was employed
    Artificer Apprentice could not be counted for computation of the qualify- H
                                       269
    270                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A ing period of pension. The facts of the case and varions provisions of Navy
  Act and the Regulations leave no room for doubt that the appellant even
  during the period he was working as Artificer Apprentice was in the Service
  of Navy, was given Good Conduct Badges for this service and four years
  service was counted from the year 1971. The Discharge Certificate which
  is a statutory document clearly records that he has served in the Indian
B
  Navy from 12th August, 1971 to 31st January, 1988. The respondents after
  granting all these certificates and badges, cannot be heard to say that the
  appellant had not put in the qualifying period of service of fifteen years
  and, therefore, was not entitled to get p-ion. [278-H; 279-A; 278-D-F]

C         H.S. Sarkar v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 2 An. W..R. 221), referred
    to.

         1.2. The fact that the appellant was enrolled as an Artificer appren-
  tice, does not go to show that he was not serving the Navy as a sailor. The
  statutory provisions go to show that a person can join Indian Navy as an
D officer or a Sailor. An officer and a petty officer have been defined in
  Sub-sections (16) and (17) of Section 3 and any person who is other than
  an ~fficer and is in naval service has been defined as a sailor. The
  appellant was not an officer. He had joined Indian Navy and imm~diately
  after his enrolment he was made to take oath which every officer and every
E sailor under Section 13 is bound to take. Regulation 261 clearly lays down
  that recruitment of sailors shall be made through boy entry, artificer
  apprentice entry and direct entry as officer. [275-G-H; 276-A-B]

          13. The contention that even if the appellant is treated as a sailor,
    he cannot be said to have been in the service of Navy during period of
F   training, is not admissible in the facts of the case and in view of the
    provisions of the Act. [276-F-G]

         CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
    No. 1110 of 1992.

G         From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.91 of the Delhi High Court
    in C.W. No. 1502 of 1991.

          With W.P. (C) Nos. 831/93 and 293, 752 & 601 of 1994.

          G.D. Gupta and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appellants in C.A. No.
H 1110/92.
                             A.KDEYv. U.O.I.[SEN,J.)                         271

          K.G. Bhagat, M.S. Bakshi, G.G. Singh, K.K. Baid, S.S. Dahiya, A.R.        A
    Khan, Ranbir Yadav and Debasis Misra for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
•   831/93, 293, 752 and 601/94.

          Ms. Niranjan Singh for Ms. Anil Katiyar and Ms. Sushma Suri (NP)
    for the Respondents.
                                                                                    B
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :

           SEN. J. Anuj Kumar Dey, the appellant herein, joined Indian Navy
    as Artificer Apprentice on 12th August, 1971. On 17th August, 1971 the
    statutory oath of allegiance was administered to him. He claims that his
    service in the Indian Navy must be calculated from that date, that is, 17th
                                                                                    c
    August, 1971. On 11th August, 1975 the appellant's training as Artificer
    Apprentice was over. Immediately thereafter, he was advanced to Electri-
    cal Artificer Vth Class on 12th August, 1975. Various promotions were
    given to the appellant thereafter from time to time. On 31st January, 1988
    the appellant was released from the Navy. The dispute in this case is about D
    the entitlement of the appellant to get pensionary benefits for his service
    under the Navy. According to the appellant, he has served the Navy for
    more than fifteen years which must be counted from 17th August, 1971
    when he was administered oath of allegiance. According to the respon-
    dents, the four years spent by the appellant as Artificer Apprentice was E
    training period only and, therefore, the service of the appellant commenced
    only on 12th August, 1975 whe~ he was appointed Electrical Artificer Vth
    Class, after completion of his training as Artificer Apprentice on 11th
    August, 1975. The question is whether this period of four years, 17.8.71 to
    11.8.75 during which the appellant was undergoing training as Artificer
    Apprentice under the Navy, should be counted in the period of service F
    rendered by the appellant.

          Before going into the merits of the case, it will be necessary to refer
    to the relevant provisions of the Navy Act, 1957 and also to some of the
    Regulations framed under the said Act :                                         G

                ..•               THE NAVY ACT, 1957

                                       CHAPTER - I

                                     PRELIMINARY                                    H
    272                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A         3. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.-



          (16) 'officer' means a commissioned officer and includes a subor-
          dinate officer but does not include a petty officer;
B
          (17) 'petty officer' means a sailor rated as such and includes a chief ·
          petty officer and a master chief petty officer.



C         (20) 'sailor' means a person in the naval service other than an
          officer;

                            CHAPTER - IV
            COMMISSIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND ENROLMENTS

D         9. (1) No person who is not a citizen of India shall be eligible for
          appointment or enrolment in the Indian Navy or the Indian Naval
          Reserve Forces except with the consent of the Central Govern-
          ment.


E
          10. (1) Officers other than subordinate officers shall be appointed
          by commission granted by the President.



F         (3) Subordinate officers shall be appointed in such manner and
          shall hold such rank as may be prescribed.

          11. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the terms and
          conditions of service of sailors, the person authorised to enrol for
G         service as sailors and the manner and procedure of such enrol-
          ment shall be such as may be prescribed.

          (2) No person shall be enrolled as a sailor in the tndian Navy for
          a period exceeding twenty years in the first instance :

H
                 AKDEYv. U.0.1.[SEN,J.]                           273

12. Where a person after his enrolment has for a period of three A
months from the date of such enrolment been in receipt of pay as
a sailor, he shall be deemed to have been duly enrolled and shall
not thereafter be entitled to claim his discharge on the ground of
any irregularity or illegality in his engagement or any other ground
whatsoever; and if within the said three months such person claims
                                                                       B
his discharge, no such irregularity or illegality or other ground
shal~ until such person is discharged in pursuance of his claim
affect his position as a sailor in the naval service or invalidate any
proceedings, act or thing taken or done prior to his. discharge.

13. Every officer and every sailor shall, as soon as may be, after       C
appointment or enrolment make and subscribe before the com-
manding officer of the ship to which he belongs, or the prescribed
officer on oath or affirmation in the following form that is to say:-

     I .......... do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I
     will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India D
     as by law established and that I will, as in duty bound,
     honestly and faithfully serve in the naval service and go
     wherever ordered by sea, land or air, and that I will observe
     and obey all commands of the President and the commands
     of any superior officer set over me, even to the peril of my E
     lifen.

14. Liability for service of officers and sailors.- (1) Subject to the
provisions of sub-section (4), officers and sailors shall be liable to
serve in the Indian Navy or the Indian Naval Reserve Forces, as
the case may be, until they are duly discharged, di,missed, dis-         F
missed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign, or released.

15. Tenure of service of officers and sailors.- (1) Every officer and
sailor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.
                                                                         G
16. Discharge on expiry of engagement.- Subject to the provisions
of Section 18, a sailor shall be entitled to be discharged at the
expiration of the term of service for which he is engaged unless-

17. (1) A sailor entitled to be discharged under section 16 shall be
discharged with all convenient speed and in any case within one H
    274                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A            month of his becoming so entitled :

              (4) Every sailor who is dismissed, discharged, retired, permitted
            . to resign or released from service shall be furnished by the
              prescribed officer with a certific~te in the language which is the
              mother tongue of such sailor and also in the English Language
B             setting forth-

                  (a) the authority terminating his service;

                  (b) the cause for such termination; and

c                 (c) the full period of his service in the Indian Navy and the
                  Indian Naval Reserve Forces.

          Apart from the aforesaid provisions of the Navy Act, by Section 184
   the Central Government has been empowered to make regulations in
   respect of, inter alia, "the terms and conditions of service, the pay, the
D pensions, allowances and other benefits of persons in the naval service,
    including special provision in this behalf during active service". In exercise
    of this power, the Central .Government has framed the regulations called
    "the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964". 'Service' has been defined in
    Regulation 2(1) to mean "service in the Indian Navy." Chapter III of the
E Regulations deals with Sailors. In this Chapter, Regulation 69(2) deals with
    Service Pension and Gratuity of the Sailors. Regulation 78 lays down,
    "Unless otherwise provided, the minimum service which qualifies for ser-
    vice pension is fifteen years." Regulation 79 is important for the purpose
    of this i:ase and lays down, "All service from the date of enrolment or
  . advancement to the rank of ordinary sea-man or equivalent to the date of
F discharge shall _<lualify for pension or gratuity". Regulation 261 deals with
    recruitment and provides :

             "261. RECRUITMENT - (1) The Chief of Naval Staff may recruit
             sailors required for the service.
G                (2) Recruitment of sailors shall be made through boy entry,
             artificer apprentice entry and direct entry as necessary. The
             recruitment shall be carried out by the Recruitment Organisation
             established for the purpose and by any other authority as may be
             decided upon by the Chief of the Naval Staff from time to time.
H            Persons authorised to enrol sailors, the manner, procedure and
                            AK DEYv. U.0.1. [SEN, J.]                       275
            terms and conditions of enrolment shall be as laid down in the         A
            appropriate Regulations."

          Regulations 290 and 291 are also important for the purpose of this
    case and are as under :-

            "290. AWARD OF GOOD CONDUCT BADGE - GOOD CON- B
            DUCT BADGE shall not be awarde.~tored as a matter of
            course merely because a man has avoided serious punishments. If
            the captain is satisfied .that a man is fully qualified in accordance
            with regulations 291 to 293 and sub-regulation (1) of regulation
            294 and is deserving of the award a badge shall be conferred, when C
            due, under provisions of this regulation. The maximum numbers
            of badges that a sailor may eam during his se1vice shall be three.

            291. SERVICE QUALIFICATION - (1) Before a sailor c&n be
            considered for the award of a Good Conduct Badge, he must have
            completed the following periods :                                      D
            For 1st Good Conduct Badge ...      4 years.




-           For 2nd Good Conduct Badge ... 8 years.

            For 3rd Good Conduct Badge ... 12 years.

           The first question in this case is whether the appellant ~an· be
    regarded as a "Sailor". The argument on behalf of the respondents has been
                                                                                   E


    that the appellant was undergoing training as an Artificer Apprentice. He
    could not be treated as a Sailor during this period of training. It was only
    when he was advanced to Electrical Artificer Vth Class after completion        F
    of his training that he became a Sailor.

       · Various provisions of this Act and the regulations set out
    hereinabove, do not support this contention. The definition of 'sailor', as
    given in Section 3(20), is of wide amplitude and means "person in the naval
    service other than an officer". The provisions of Section 9, 10 and 11 of the G
    Act go to show that an officer, who is not a ·subordinate officer, is
    'appointed' by commission granted by the President. Subordinate officers
    may be 'appointed' in the prescribed manner, but the sailors are 'enrolled'
    in the Navy. The Chapter Heading is Commissions, Appointments and
    Enrolments. Section 13 lays down that every officer and every sailor shall, H
    276                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A as soon as may be possible after appointment or enrolment, make and
    subscribe an oath on affirmation in the prescribed form.

           These, statutory provisions go to show that a person can join Indian
    Navy as an officer or a sailor. An officer and a petty officer have been
    defined in sub-sections (16) and (17) of Section 3 and any person who is
B   other than an officer and is naval secvice has been defined as a sailor. The
    appellant was not an officer. He had joined Indian Navy and immediately
    after his enrolment he was made to take oath which every officer and every
    sailor under Section 13 is bound to take. Moreover, Regulation 261. clearly
    lays down that recruitment of sailors shall be made through boy entry,
C   artificer apprentice entry and direct entry as officer. Therefore, the fact
    that the appellant was enrolled as an Artificer Apprentice, does not in any
    way go to show that he was not a sailor and was not serving the Navy as
    a sailor.

           Section 12 lays down that where a person after his enrolment has for
D   a period of three months from the date of such enrolment been in receipt
    of pay as Sailor, he shall be deemed to have been duly enrolled. Now, there
    is no dispute that the appellant had received pay regularly after his enrol-
    ment. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the appel-
    lant was allowed an allowance during the term of the training. The case of
E   the appellant is that he used to get a fixed pay during the period of the
    training. The fact that he used to get a fixed pay does not go to show that
    he did not receive pay regularly after his enrolment.

          The position becomes even clearer if a reference is made to Section
    13 which provides that every officer and every sailor shall as soon as may
F   be after the appointment or enrolment make and subscribe an oath or
    affirmation in the prescribed form. This is something which only an officer
    or a Sailor is required to do. There is no dispute that the appellant was
    administered oath. This could only be done under the Act if he was either
    an officer or a Sailor. If the contention of the respondents that the
G   appellant was not even a "Sailor" during the period of training, then it has
    not been explained why he was administered oath.

         The next objection was that even if the appellant could be treated as
  a sailor, he could not be said to have been in the service of the Navy during
  the period of training. This argument is also unacceptable in the facts of
H the case and in view of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations.
                         AK. DEYv. U.0.1. (SEN,J.]                        277

       In the prescribed form of oath that was administered to the appel- A
!ant, he had to swear "....... I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faith.fully
serve in the naval service ....... ". It is clear that the appellant was enrolled
as a Sailor, took oath as a Sailor and drew salary as a Sailor and was in
the service of the Navy as a Sailor during the period of undergoing training
as Artificer Apprentice.                                                          B

      The qualifying period for earning pension is service of 15 years under
the Navy. Having regard to the facts of the case and the documents
annexed to the appeal, there is little doubt that the training period as
Artificer Apprentice will have to be included in the computation of the
qualifying period of service. Regulation 79 lays down that all service from      C
the date of enrolment or advancement to the rank of ordinary seaman or
equivalent to the date of discharge shall qualify for pension or gratuity.
Therefore, the date of advancement is not the only starting point for
computation of the qualifying period of service. In the case of the appellant
the date of enrolment should be· the material date. He was administered         D
oath as a Sailor even before the date of his advancement to the rank of
Electrical Artificer Vth Class. In fact, the Discharge Certificate issued, by
the Navy to the appellant is to the following effect and puts the matter
beyond any doubt :-

        "This is to certify that ANUJ KUMAR DEY, CHIEF ELECTRI-                  E
        CAL ARTIFICER (AIR), NO. 052264-H has served in the Indian
        Navy from 12 August 1971 to 31ST JANUARY, 1988 as per details
        overleaf."

This is a statutory certificate which has to be given under sub-section (4)      F
of Section 17 of the Navy Act. The Discharge Certificate must state the full
period of service in the Indian Navy. According to the calculation made by
the Navy itself, this period of service is more than the qualifying period of
15 years.

       Not only that. In the details that had been given along with the G
Discharge Certificate, it has been mentioned "Joined on 12th August, 1971.
Released on 31st January, 1988." The Date of Attestation in the Indian
Navy is given as "17th August, 1971 (Oath of allegiance taken)". This is a
certificate given by the Indian Navy in accordance with requirement of
Section 17.                                                                H
    278                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A          There is another document described as "Certificate of the Service"
    where Period of Engagement has been shown as twelve years (from 16.8.75
    to 15.8.1985 and from 16.8.85 to 31.1.1988). On behalf of the respondents,
    strong reliance has been placed on this document. However, this document
    does not say that the appellant was in service for twelve years only. This is
    an entry in a column headed "Period of Engagement". In fact, in the ve~
B   next page of that document, details of the service of the appellant and
    Substantive Rank held by him have been given. There, it has been shown
    that the appellant was serving in the ship "VALSURA" in the Substantive
    Rank Art. (App) from 12th August, 1971 to 27th Noveljlb~r, 1973. It has
    al'o been recorded in that document that the oath of aUegi~nce was taken
C   on 18th August, 1971. In the column headed "Good Cortdqct Badges", it
    has been shown that the appellant was awarded Good Conduct Badges in
    August, 1975, August, 1979 and August, 1983. That document was given to
    show "Character and Efficiency on 31st December yearly, on ,final dis-
    charge and other occasions prescribed by regulation". It appears that in the
D   yearly column on and from 31st December 1971 to 31st December, 1988
    (the date of discharge), every year the appellant's character has been
    certified as V.G. (Very Good). Under Regulation 291, these badges can be
    awarded only after completion of four years (first badge), 8 years (second
    badge) and 12 years (third badge) of service. It has been laid down under
    Regulation 290 that "the maximum number of badges that a sailor may earn
E   during his service shall be three".

           All these facts and the various provisions of the Act and the Regnla-
    tions leave no room for doubt that the appellant even during the period he
    was working as Artificer Apprentice was in the service of the Navy, was
F   given Good Conduct Badges for this service and four years' service was
    counted from the year 1971. The Discharge Certificate which is a statutory
    document clearly records that he has served in the Indian Navy from 12th
    August, 1971to31st January, 1988. The respondents after granting all these
    certificates and badges, cannot be heard to say that the appellant had not
    put in the qualifying period of service of fifteen years and, therefore, was
G   not entitled to get pension.

          Our attention was drawn to a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High
    Court in the case of H.S. Sarkar v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 2 An.
    W.R. 221, where it was held that "It does not stand to reason that when
H   the training period of four years is reckoned for the purpose of computa-
                           AK DEYv. U.0.1.[SEN,J.]                       279

    tion of 15 years for retiring a person, the same is not reckoned for the A
    purpose of pension ..... Payment of only a consolidated pay during the
    training period and not regular scale of pay is immaterial in so far as the
    computation of the period is concerned".

          We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was
    in error in holding that the period of four years when the appellant was    B
    employed Artificer Apprentice could not be counted for computation of
    the qualifying period of pension.

         For the reasons stated hereinabove; the appeal is allowed. The
    judgment of the High Court dated 17th July, 1991 is set aside. There will
    be no order as to costs.                                                    c
         Writ Petition Nos. 831/93, 293, 752 and 601/94

          In view of our above judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1110 of 1992,
    these writ petitions are also allowed with no order as to costs.

    K.K.T.                                     Appeal and Petitions allowed.




I