Holding

Direct Entry Artificers were not drafted into the Fleet Reserve; therefore, they cannot count the reserve period for pension and are not entitled to reservist pension.

Summary

The appellants, former Direct Entry Artificers of the Indian Navy, served ten years of active duty and claimed that they were automatically placed in the Fleet Reserve for another ten years, with fifty percent of that period counting toward the fifteen years of service required for a pension. The respondents contended that no such drafting into the Fleet Reserve occurred. The Supreme Court examined Navy regulations, particularly Regulation 269, which mandates a positive order of enrolment for Fleet Reserve service, and held that the mere liability to serve in the Reserve does not constitute automatic drafting. Consequently, the appellants could not count any reserve period toward pension eligibility and were not entitled to a reservist pension, though they may be considered for a special pension under Regulation 95. The Court also rejected the argument that Direct Entry Artificers should be treated on par with Apprentice Entry Artificers, noting that the latter’s training period is counted for pension per earlier case law. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the reserve liability imposed at the time of enrolment automatically amounts to being drafted into the Fleet Reserve and thus counts toward pension service.
Whether Direct Entry Artificers are entitled to the same pension treatment as Apprentice Entry Artificers on the basis of belonging to a homogeneous class.

Legislation cited

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007s. 30
Navy Act, 1957s. 14, s. 16, s. 17, s. 184A
Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964s. Regulation 78, s. Regulation 79, s. Regulation 92, s. Regulation 95
Navy Regulations Part IIIs. Regulation 268, s. Regulation 269
Regulations for Indian Fleet Reserves. Regulation 11, s. Regulation 4, s. Regulation 6

Subjects

Navy pensionFleet ReserveDirect Entry ArtificersReservist pensionPromissory estoppelSpecial pensionService tenureArmed Forces TribunalRegulation 269Equality Article 14

Judgment

[2018] 4 S.C.R. 373 373

EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION A
& ORS.
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6785 of 2014) B
MAY 08, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Armed Forces:
Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 – Regns. 78 and 269 – C
Direct Entry Artificers of Navy – Pension – Entitlement of –
Requirement of rendering of minimum service of 15 years – On facts,
appellants engaged as Direct Entry Artificers prior to July 1976 –
Claim of appellants that after their initial engagement period of 10
years as Artificers, they were placed in Fleet Reserve for a period
D
of 10 years and as per Regulations, 50% of the period of Reserve
which is 5 years, to be counted for pension, thus, rendered 15 years
of service to receive pensionary benefits – Respondents denied
placement of appellants’ in Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years –
Held: As stipulated in Reg 269, liability to serve in the Fleet Reserve,
if required, is only when such a Sailor is drafted into Fleet Reserve E
– There has to be a positive act of enrolment in the Fleet Reserve –
Person who is enrolled as Artificer in the Indian Navy and
completes 10 years’ of service, cannot presume that he stands
automatically enrolled in Fleet Reserve – On facts, no promise held
out to the appellants that after the completion of continuous
F
service of 10 years as Sailors, they would be drafted into Fleet
Reserve – Even prior to the promulgation of policy for
discontinuance of drafting into Fleet Reserve from 1976,
respondent were clearly at liberty to decide if a Sailor is to be
enrolled into Fleet Reserve or not – Further, in the absence of any
such assurance of enrolment of drafting into Fleet Reserve, at the G
time of initial recruitment, the Principle of Promissory Estoppel
cannot be invoked – Thus, appellants not entitled to count 50% of
the Fleet Reserve as they were never drafted into the said reserve –
They are not entitled to reservist pension – However, their cases
H
373
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A would be considered for grant of special pension – Further,
appellants not entitled to be treated at par with the Apprentice
Entry Artificers for pension purposes.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Once a person is enrolled as Sailor/Officer in
B the Indian Navy, he is liable to serve in the Indian Navy or in the
Indian Naval Forces, as the case may be, until he is discharged,
dismissed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign or released.
In the event of discharge, dismissal etc, i.e., at the time of
severance from Naval service, every sailor has to be furnished
C with a certificate in his mother tongue and also in English language.
Such a certificate states the authority terminating his services;
the cause of such termination; and the full period of service in
the Indian Navy and the Indian Naval Reserve Forces. In order
to become qualified to receive service pension, minimum service
of 15 years is required. [Para 19][388-B-D]
D
1.2 Calculating the qualifying period for the purpose of
pension and gratuity, entire service from the date of enrolment
or advancement to the rank of ordinary seaman or equivalent till
the date of discharge is to be counted. Thus, whereas full
continuous service in the Navy is to be reckoned for pension,
E insofar Fleet Reserve is concerned those who are drafted
thereinto are entitled to count 50% of the period of Fleet Reserve
as reckonable service towards pension. [Para 20][388-E-F]
1.3 Insofar as, drafting into Fleet Reserve is concerned,
Regulations in respect thereof provide as under: (i) Those Sailors
F who are having 10 years’ service as Sailors are eligible for drafting
in Indian Fleet Reserve; (ii) As per Regulation 269, those who
have rendered 10 years’ service, their service is to be treated as
continuous service. This Regulation further provides that
continuous service of Sailors of all branches shall be liable, if
G required, for a further 10 years’ service in the Indian Fleet
Reserve; (iii) Regulation 4 of the Regulations for Indian Fleet
Reserve lays down qualification criteria in respect of character,
efficiency, medical status and age for joining the Fleet Service,
which means only those who fulfill qualifications contained in

H
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 375
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Regulation 4 can be considered for drafting into Fleet Reserve. A
Further, Regulation 6 specifically declares that no person can
join the Fleet Reserve as a matter of right. The manner of
enrolment is mentioned in Regulation 11, as per which,
Commanding Officer has to make a specific recommendation for
such an enrolment, i.e., he has to say as to whether or not he is
B
recommending a particular Sailor for Fleet Reserve service and
his service certificate has to be endorsed accordingly; and (iv) In
case of positive recommendation, a Fleet Reserve certificate has
to be issued to such a person on enrolment in Fleet Reserve.
[Para 21][388-F-G; 389-A-C]
1.4 It is clear from that liability to serve in the Indian Fleet C
Reserve, if required, as stipulated in Regulation 269, is only when
such a Sailor is drafted into Indian Fleet Reserve. There has to
be, thus, a positive act of enrolment in the Fleet Reserve. A
person who is enrolled as Artificer in the Indian Navy and
completes 10 years’ of service, cannot presume that he stands D
automatically enrolled in Fleet Reserve. So far as appellant Nos.
2 to 5 are concerned, there was no such enrolment in Fleet
Reserve. [Paras 22, 23][389-D-E]
1.5 In fact, the appellants were conscious of the said
position. That was the reason that Principle of Promissory E
Estoppel was invoked on the ground that since their enrolment
was prior to July 03, 1976, the decision of the Government of
India to discontinue transfer of Sailors into Fleet Reserve as
contained in communication dated July 03, 1976 is not binding
on them. Even if this Court proceed on that basis, the legal position
that has been culled out from the relevant statutory provision F
and enumerated herein, clearly shows that there was no promise
held out to these appellants that after the completion of continuous
service of 10 years as Sailors, they would be drafted into Fleet
Reserve. The tribunal has correctly remarked that at the time of
initial enrolment no recruit can be given any guarantee/promise G
of his being enrolled into Fleet Reserve as his performance in
the active service and recommendations he receives would decide
his eligibility for enrolment into Fleet Reserve. Therefore, even
prior to the promulgation of policy for discontinuance of drafting

H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A into Fleet Reserve from 1976, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were
clearly at liberty to decide if a Sailor is to be enrolled into Fleet
Reserve or not. [Para 24][389-F-G; 390-A]
1.6 In the absence of any such assurance of enrolment of
drafting into Fleet Reserve, at the time of initial recruitment, the
B Principle of Promissory Estoppel cannot be invoked. The tribunal
has rightly concluded that mere recruitment/enrolment for
active as well as reserve service without making any order of
transfer to Indian Fleet Reserve under Regulation 269 of Navy
Regulation Part III as well as Regulations of Indian Fleet
Reserve, it cannot be treated that any promise was accorded to
C the appellants about drafting into Fleet Reserve, at any time.
[Para 26][392-B-C]
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. (1979) 2 SCC 409 : [1979] 2 SCR
641 ; Bakul Cashew Co. & Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer,
D Quilon & Anr. (1986) 2 SCC 365 : [1986] 1 SCR 610
– referred to.
1.7 Question no.1 is answered in the negative and it is held
that the appellants are not entitled to count 50% of the Fleet
Reserve as they were never drafted into the said reserve.
E Consequently, the appellants are not entitled to reservist pension.
However, their cases would be considered for grant of special
pension on same lines as was done in T.R. Das judgment.
[Para 28][394-D-E]
T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2017) 4 SCC
F 218 : [2016] 6 SCR 541 – relied on.
2.1 Insofar as Apprentice Entry Artificers are concerned
they are getting pension and the appellants’ claim that since
Artificer is one homogeneous class, whether the Entry thereto
is after completing the Apprenticeship course or it is a direct
G entry (as in the case of Appellants) all the Artificers are to be
treated alike. There is no quarrel about this proposition. However,
in the instant case, the concern is with the question as to whether
the appellants are eligible for service pension even after they
have rendered only 10 years of service (as they are held not
entitled to count any period of Fleet Reserve in which they were
H
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 377
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

never drafted). Had Apprentice Artificers also got the pension A
on rendition of 10 years’ service, there would have been some
force in the argument of the appellants. However, that is not so.
Insofar as Apprentice Entry Artificers are concerned, they had
undergone 4 years’ training in Naval establishment. Thereafter,
they were advanced to the rank of Artificer V and their initial
B
engagement of 10 years’ active service commenced. After one
year in the rank of Artificer Vth Class, these Apprentice Entry
Artificers were advanced to the rank of Artificer acting IVth Class.
In their cases, the training period of four years has been counted
for considering their eligibility for the purpose of pension.
[Para 29][394-F-G; 395-A-B] C
Anuj Kumar Dey & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
(1997) 1 SCC 366 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 269 –
distinguished.
2.2 An attempt was made by the counsel for appellants to
argue that Anuj Kumar Dey does not lay down correct law as the D
training period could not have been reckoned for calculating
qualifying period for pension. However, it is not open to the
appellants to raise such an argument. In the first place, this
argument would not enure to the benefit of the appellants as it
would not entitle them to pension in any case. Even if the
contention of the appellants is presumed as correct, the only effect E
thereof would be to hold that even Apprentice Entry Artificer are
not entitled to pension. The counsel for appellants was candid in
his submission that he did not want Apprentice Entry Artificers
to be deprived of their pension. Secondly, in any case, in the
absence of Apprentice Entry Artificers, such an argument cannot F
be considered. Thirdly, the law laid down in Anuj Kumar has held
the filed for more than 20 years and there is no reason to upset
the same. For all these reasons, Question no. (2) is answered
against the appellants. [Para 30][395-E-G]
Case Law Reference
G
[2016] 6 SCR 541 relied on Para 28
[1979] 2 SCR 641 referred to Para 26
[1986] 1 SCR 610 referred to Para 26
[1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 269 distinguished Para 29
H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6785
of 2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2014 of the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Kochi in O. A. No. 8 of 2013 and
25.03.2014 in R.A.No. 26 of 2014 in O. A.No. 8 of 2013.
B Dr. K. Subba Rao, Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advs for the Appellants.
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv, Gautam Sharma, V. Balaji, Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Advs for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. Appellant No. 1 is a registered Association
C of Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificers, whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are
Ex Direct Entry Artificers of the Navy. Primarily, it is the cause of
appellant Nos.2 to 5 which is espoused by their Association as well i.e.
appellant No.1. These appellant Nos. 2 to 5 have rendered actual service
of 10 years. For an Artificer to become entitled to pension, he is supposed
to render minimum service of 15 years as per Regulation 78 of the Navy
D
(Pension) Regulations, 1964. The appellants claim that after their initial
engagement period of 10 years as Artificers, they were placed in Fleet
Reserve for a period of 10 years and as per Regulations, 50% of the
period of Reserve is to be counted for the purpose of pension. On that
basis, it is claimed that 5 years period of Reserve would enure to their
E benefit and on adding this period of 5 years with actual service of 10
years, it is to be treated that they have rendered 15 years of service and
are accordingly entitled to receive pensionary benefits. The respondents
deny the placement of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 in Fleet Reserve for a
period of 10 years as claimed by the said appellants. Therefore, the
moot question is as to whether the appellants, after rendering actual
F
service of 10 years in the Navy, were drafted into Fleet Reserve or not.
2. The appellants had filed O.A. No. 8 of 2013 before the Armed
Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AFT’), Regional Bench,
Kochi in which prayer to grant benefit was sought by them. The AFT,
however, has not accepted the case set up by the appellants. As a
G result, their O.A. stands dismissed by the AFT vide order dated January
22, 2014. The appellants thereafter filed review petition seeking review
of that judgment which was also dismissed by the AFT on March 25,
2014. Simultaneously, however, prayer for leave to appeal to this Court
have been granted by the AFT seeking authoritative pronouncement of
H this Court on the following questions of law formulated by the Tribunal:
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 379
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

“(1) Whether the applicants’ reserve liabilities imposed at the time A
of enrolment ipso facto amounted to their being drafted to Fleet
Reserve without any specific order to draft them to the Reserve
on completion of regular Naval service? If so, whether the period
of such reserve liability as per the stipulated scheme was liable to
be taken into account for computing the length of service of the
B
applicants for pension purposes?
(2) Whether the applicants Nos. 2 to 5 were entitled to be treated
at par with the Apprentice Entry Artificers for pension purposes
only on the ground that both of them belong to the same
homogenous class of Artificers?
C
3. Both these orders passed in O.A. as well as in review petition
have been assailed by the appellants by way of instant appeal preferred
under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.
4. We now advert to the seminal facts which have led to the
present litigation. D
5. In the Indian Navy, the sailors are of two classes, the Artificers
class and the non-Artificer class. Artificers are considered to be skilled
sailors and they work on sophisticated technologies of warships. For the
Artificer Class, there are two channels of Entry, known as Apprentice
Entry Artificers and Direct Entry Artificers. The appellants joined Indian E
Navy as Direct Entry Artificers. At the relevant point of time (i.e. prior
to July 3, 1976), the initial engagement of the Apprentice Entry Artificers
as well as of the Direct Entry Artificers (appellants herein) was for 10
years active service. On the expiry of this term, they could be drafted
into Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years. A person who is kept in
Fleet Reserve can be recalled at any time, during the said period of 10 F
years, to serve in the Navy.
6. The Apprentice Entry Artificers (with education qualification
of Matriculation) get 4 years training in Indian Navy during which period
they get a special rate of pay (fixed stipend per month). After the 4
years training period in naval establishment, the Apprentice Entry G
Artificers are advanced to the rank of Artificer Vth Class and their
initial engagement of 10 years active service commences. At the end of
it, they could also be kept in Fleet Reserve for 10 years. It may be
mentioned that after one year in the rank of Artificer Vth Class, these
Apprentice Entry Artificers are advanced to the rank of Artificer Acting
H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A IVth Class to complete the engagement 10 years active service. On the
other hand, Direct Entry Artificers, to which class appellants belong,
with qualification of 3 years Diploma in Engineering from recognized
Universities in the country are directly enrolled to the rank of Artificer
Acting IVth Class with initial engagement of 10 years active service. It
may also be stated that in the rank of Artificer Acting IVth Class, the
B
Apprentice Entry Artificers and Direct Entry Artificers are merged
together, and are treated at par for the purposes of rank, work, promotions,
pay and allowances, leave and other benefits allowed for sailors. They
are all governed by the same Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. In
their respective ranks, they relieve each other when transferred to ships
C and establishments.
7. These facts are noted, as stated by the appellants, because of
the reason that the appellants are claiming that since Apprentice Entry
Artificers are given the pension, after counting the 4 years training period
in Naval Establishment, same treatment be given to the appellants as
D well. Question No. 2 framed by the AFT and referred to this Court
touches upon this aspect.
8. Reverting to the facts of the appellants’ case, as pointed out
above, appellant Nos. 2 to 5 were engaged as Direct Artificers for a
period of 10 years. All these appellants were engaged prior to July,
E 1976. This is the actual service rendered by them. According to them,
they were drafted into Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years and 50%
of this period have been counted for pension. On that basis, they claim
that they have become entitled to receive pension. Therefore, they made
a request on May 10, 2012 to the respondents to grant pension to them.
However, vide reply dated June 25, 2012, respondents turned down their
F request as ‘not tenable in accordance with the extent rules/
regulations’. The reason given by the respondents was that the
appellants were not drafted into Fleet Reserve at all and, therefore, there
was no reason to count 50% of the Fleet Reserve period. The
respondents, in this behalf, referred to Government Order
G No. AD/5374/2/76/2214/S/D(N.II) dated July 3, 1976 as per which
drafting into Fleet Reserve was discontinued from 1976 onwards and,
therefore, the appellants were never drafted into Fleet Reserve. After
receiving this rejection of their request, the appellants approach the AFT
in the form of O.A. which has met the fate of dismissal, as already
mentioned above.
H
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 381
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

9. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the AFT would reveal A
that the appellants were enrolled into Navy under Regulation 268(1) of
the Navy Regulations, Part III. Regulation 269 thereof provides for an
initial engagement of 10 years, followed by liability to remain 10 years in
Fleet Reserve. However, further 10 years service in Fleet Reserve is
subject to regulations of Fleet Reserve. At the time of recruitment itself
B
of the appellants, it was made clear to them that they would be drafted
into Fleet Reserve only if required and regulations for Indian Fleet Reserve
specifically stipulate that ‘no man can claim to join Fleet Reserve as
a right’. Therefore, the appellants did not have any automatic right to
get drafted into Fleet Reserve. In any case, in terms of Government’s
letter dated July 3, 1976, transfer of sailors into Fleet Reserve was C
discontinued and, therefore, no orders for drafting the appellants into
Fleet Reserve were ever made. There is no notation on records that
they are being drafted into Fleet Reserve on expiry of their active service.
In this behalf, the AFT has quoted relevant portion of Government’s
letter dated July 3, 1976 which is as under:
D
“SUB: CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF SAILORS.
I am directed to state that the President is pleased to approve the
following modifications in the conditions of service of sailors:—
----
E
(f) Transfer to Current Fleet Reserve:— Transfer of sailors
into the Fleet Reserve to be discontinued. ———
3. Appropriate Government Regulations/Orders will be amended
in due course.”
10. The AFT also found that subsequently, Regulations for the F
Navy was amended by the Government of India vide SRO.No.106 of
1978 dated 28th March 1978. Relevant portions of the SRO are given
below:
“S.R.O.106:— In exercise of the powers conferred by section
184 of the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), the Central Government G
hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the Navy
Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Regulations,
1964, namely:—
2. In the Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and
Miscellaneous Regulations, 1964— H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A (i) in regulation 269, in sub-regulation (1), for the brackets and
figure “(1)”, the brackets, figure and words “(1) Old Entrants”
shall be substituted, and after subregulation (1) as so amended,
the following sub-regulation shall be inserted, namely:—
“(1A) New Entrants:—(a) Boys, Artificer, Apprentices and
B Direct Entry sailors may be enrolled for a period calculated to
permit a period of 15 years’ service to be completed from the
date of enrolment or from the date of attaining the age of 17
years, whichever is later, provided their services are so long
required.
C …...........
(1B)(a) In case of the existing sailors, their period of engagement
shall be governed by sub-regulation (1), except that they shall not
be transferred to Fleet Reserve.
(b) . . . . . .
D
(1C) Persons joining service on or after the 3rd July, 1976 shall be
deemed to be New Entrants.”
11. After going through the various provisions of Navy Act, Navy
Regulations, Part III and the aforesaid amendments, the AFT culled out
the relevant features in the form of salient points in the following manner:
E
“25. Salient points that emerge from the above Regulations, which
are of relevance in this case are:—
(a) Sailors having 10 years continuous service shall be liable, if
required, for further service in Indian Fleet Reserve, subject to
F provisions of Regulations for Indian Fleet Reserve (Regulation
269).
(b) When an active service rating is within six months of
completion of his term of enrollment, the Commanding
Officer has to inform the Registrar of Reserves whether or
G not he is recommended for Fleet Reserve Service and his
service certificate is to be endorsed accordingly (Regulation
11 of Fleet Reserve).
(c) Qualifications have been specified for enrolment into Fleet
Reserves. Joining Reserves is not a Right (Regulations 4 and
H 6 of Fleet Reserves).
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 383
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

(d) Recruiting officers are mandated to explain and make the A
recruits fully understand terms and conditions of service and
liabilities before they are enrolled into the Navy (Regulation 264
of Regulations for the Navy).
(e) A Fleet Reservist Certificate will be issued to each person on
enrolment in Fleet Reserves. B
26. It is evident from the Regulations that a Sailor after his active
service has to be drafted into Fleet Reserve and it is not an
automatic re-enrollment. There is no specific claim or right to join
the Fleet Reserve as there are terms and conditions which have
to be fulfilled by a person before he can be drafted into Fleet
C
Reserve. It is also evident that, at the time of initial
enrollment no recruit can be given any guarantee/promise
of his being enrolled into Fleet Reserve as his performance
in the active service and recommendations he receives
would decide his eligibility for enrollment into Fleet
Reserve. Therefore even prior to the promulgation of policy for D
discontinuance of drafting into Fleet Reserve from 1976,
Respondents 1 and 2 were clearly at liberty to decide if a Sailor is
to be enrolled into Fleet Reserve or not. In view of the above, we
cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel for
applicants that they were made to understand anything else.”
E
12. The appellants advanced two arguments before the AFT. In
the first instance, it was argued that at the time of their recruitment into
the service, which was before the Government’s order dated July 3,
1976 was passed, they were given to understand that they would be
rendering 10 years of active service followed by 10 years of Fleet Service.
Thus, they understood that 50% of the Fleet Service was counted towards F
pension to enable them to receive pension. Hence, the Government
was bound by Principle of Promissory Estoppel to accord the aforesaid
benefit to them. Second argument advanced by the appellants was that
the appellants, namely, Direct Entry Artificers and Apprentice Entry
Artificers formed a homogenous class. Thus, when pensionary benefits G
were accorded to the Apprentice Entry Artificers, there was no reason
to deny the same to the appellants and such a denial was discriminatory
and violated the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Both these contentions have been negated by the AFT. At the same
time, as already noticed above, on both these aspects, questions of law
have been framed while granting leave to appeal to the appellants. H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A 13. We now proceed to take up the two questions for our
consideration.
Question No. 1 - Whether the applicants’ reserve liabilities
imposed at the time of enrolment ipso facto amounted to their being
drafted to Fleet Reserve without any specific order to draft them to the
B Reserve on completion of regular Naval service? If so, whether the
period of such reserve liability as per the stipulated scheme was liable to
be taken into account for computing the length of service of the applicants
for pension purposes?
14. To find an answer to the aforesaid question, we shall have to
C traverse through some relevant provisions of the Navy Act, the Naval
Regulations Part-III as well as decision taken by the Government to
discontinue with the policy of drafting into Fleet Reserve. Insofar as
Navy Act is concerned, following provisions therefrom are relevant for
deciding the controversy.
D “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,
dismissed with disgrace, retired, permitted to resign, or released.
17. Provisions as to discharge.—(4) Every sailor who is dismissed,
E
discharged, retired, permitted to resign or released from service
shall be furnished by the prescribed officer with a certificate in
the language which is the mother tongue of such sailor and also in
the English language setting forth—
(a) the authority terminating his service;
F
(b) the cause for such termination; and
(c) the full period of his service in the Indian Navy and the Indian
Naval Reserve Forces.
[184A. Power to make regulations with retrospective effect.—
The power to make regulations conferred by this Act shall include
G the power to give retrospective effect, from a date not earlier
than the date of commencement of this Act, to the regulations or
any of them, but no retrospective effect shall be given to any
regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person
to whom such regulation may be applicable.”
H
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 385
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

15. The relevant regulations from the Pension Regulations for the A
Navy, 1964 are re-produced below:
“78. Minimum qualifying service for pension – Unless otherwise
provided, the minimum service which qualifies for service
pension is fifteen years.
79. Service qualifying for pension and gratuity – (1) All service B
from 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 with the exception of ——
87. Sailors transferred to the reserve—A sailor transferred to the
reserve after earning a service pension shall be granted such C
pension from the date of his transfer.
……..
92. Reservist pension and gratuity—(1) A reservist who is not in
receipt of a service pension may be granted, on completion of the D
prescribed naval and reserve qualifying service of ten years each,
a reservist pension of rupees eleven per mensem or a gratuity of
rupees nine hundred in lieu of pension.
(2) A reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension and
whose qualifying service is less than the period of engagement
E
but not less than fifteen years may, on completion of the period of
engagement or on earlier discharge from the serve otherwise than
at his own request, be granted a reservist pension at rupees seven
hundred and fifty in lieu of pension.”
16. Navy Regulations Part III laid down the conditions of service
F
of sailors in the Navy. Some of the provisions thereof, with which we
are concerned, are as under:
“261. Recruitment – The Chief of the Naval Staff may recruit
sailors required for the Service.
(2) Recruitment of sailors shall be made through boy entry, artificer
G
apprentice entry, and direct entry, as necessary….
……..
268. Engagements – (1) Boys, Artificer Apprentices and Direct
Entry sailors shall be enrolled for co0ntinuous service as provided
in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 269.
H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A 269. Continuous Service – (a) Old Entrants Boys, Artificer
Apprentices and Direct Entry sailors may be enrolled for a period
calculated to permit a period of 10 years’ service to be completed
from the date of attaining 17 years of age or from the date of
being ranked in the Man’s rank on successful completion of initial
training, whichever is later, provided their services are so long
B
required.
Continuous Service sailors of all Branches shall be liable, if required,
for a further 10 years’ service in the Indian Fleet Reserve, subject
to the provisions of the Regulation for the Indian Reserve.
C (1-A) New Entrants:-
(a) Boys, Artificer-Apprentices and Direct Entry sailors may be
enrolled for a period calculated to permit a period of 15 years
service to be completed from the date of attaining the age of 17
years, whichever is later, provided their services are so long
D required.
…….
(1-B) (a) In case of the existing sailors, their period of engagement
shall be governed by sub regulation (1) except that they shall not
be transferred to Fleet Reserve.
E
……….
(1-C) Persons joining service on or after the 3rd July, 1976 shall
be deemed to be New Entrants.”
17. It will also be apt to reproduce Regulation 269 (unamended)
F as it existed prior to the amendments carried out in the year 1978, which
is as follows:
“269. Continuous Service: – (1) Boys, Artificer Apprentices and
Direct Entry sailors may be enrolled for a period calculated to
permit a period of 10 years’ service to be completed from the
G date of attaining 17 years of age or from the date of being rated in
the Mans rate on successful completion of initial training, whichever
is later, provided their services are so long required.
Continuous Service sailors of all Branches shall be liable, if required,
for a further 10 years’ service in the Indian Fleet Reserve, subject
H to the provisions of the Regulations for the Indian Fleet Reserve.”
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 387
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

18. We have already reproduced portions of Government of India’s A
decision dated 3rd July, 1976 whereby transfer of Sailors into Fleet Reserve
was discontinued. Likewise, we have already extracted the relevant
portions of SRO 106 dated 28th March, 1976. In addition, it would also
be pertinent to note Regulations for Indian Fleet Reserve which are as
follows:
B
“4. Regulation 4, lays down Qualification criteria in respect of
Character, Efficiency, Medical Status and Age for joining the fleet
reserve.
6. Claim to join Fleet Reserved:—No man can claim to join the
Fleet Reserve as a right.
C
……..
11. Enrolment:— The Registrar of Reserves is authorized to enrol
or re-enrol ratings in the Royal Indian Fleet Reserve, acting under
the authority of the Officer Commanding the Royal Indian Navy.
(a) When an Active Service rating is within six months of D
completing his terms of enrolment the Commanding Officer of
the ship in which he is serving is to inform the Registrar whether
or not he is recommended for Fleet Reserve Service and is to
endorse his Service Certificate accordingly.
13. Fleet Reservist Certificate:— Every man on enrollment or
E
re-enrollment in Royal Indian fleet Reserve is to be issued with a
Fleet Reservist Certificate (Form RINF.3P). This certificate
identifies the man as a member of the Royal Indian Fleet Reserve
and contains a detachable Emergency Movement Order for use
on General Mobilisation.
19. Regulation 19 lays down mandatory training period for F
reservists.
21. Notations on Service Certificates:— On the conclusion of
each period of training the Registrar will cause the following
information to be entered in the Service Certificates of the ratings
concerned:— G
(a) Character.
(b) Ability in substantive rating held.
(c) Fitness to hold non-substantive rating (vide Article 7(v)]

H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A The Registrar is to sign the Service Certificate on page 4 as being
satisfied that the prescribed training has been carried out and that
the man is in possession of his Fleet Reservist Certificate and
know where to report on mobilization.”
19. Following position emerges from the conjoint reading of the
B aforesaid provisions:
(i) Once a person is enrolled as Sailor/Officer in the Indian Navy,
he is liable to serve in the Indian Navy or in the Indian Naval Forces, as
the case may be, until he is discharged, dismissed with disgrace, retired,
permitted to resign or released.
C
(ii) In the event of discharge, dismissal etc, i.e., at the time of
severance from Naval service, every sailor has to be furnished with a
certificate in his mother tongue and also in English language. Such a
certificate states the authority terminating his services; the cause of
such termination; and the full period of service in the Indian Navy and
D the Indian Naval Reserve Forces.
(iii) In order to become qualified to receive service pension,
minimum service of 15 years is required.
20. Calculating the qualifying period for the purpose of pension
E and gratuity, entire service from the date of enrolment or advancement
to the rank of ordinary seaman or equivalent till the date of discharge is
to be counted. Thus, whereas full continuous service in the Navy is to
be reckoned for pension, insofar Fleet Reserve is concerned those who
are drafted thereinto are entitled to count 50% of the period of Fleet
Reserve as reckonable service towards pension.
F
21. Insofar as, drafting into Fleet Reserve is concerned, Regulations
in respect thereof provide as under:
(i) Those Sailors who are having 10 years’ service as Sailors are
eligible for drafting in Indian Fleet Reserve.
G
(ii) As per Regulation 269, those who have rendered 10 years’
service, their service is to be treated as continuous service. This
Regulation further provides that continuous service of Sailors of all
branches shall be liable, if required, for a further 10 years’ service in the
Indian Fleet Reserve.
H
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 389
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

(iii) Regulation 4 of the Regulations for Indian Fleet Reserve lays A
down qualification criteria in respect of character, efficiency, medical
status and age for joining the Fleet Service, which means only those
who fulfill qualifications contained in Regulation 4 can be considered for
drafting into Fleet Reserve. Further, Regulation 6 specifically declares
that no person can join the Fleet Reserve as a matter of right. The
B
manner of enrolment is mentioned in Regulation 11, as per which,
Commanding Officer has to make a specific recommendation for such
an enrolment, i.e., he has to say as to whether or not he is recommending
a particular Sailor for Fleet Reserve service and his service certificate
has to be endorsed accordingly.
(iv) In case of positive recommendation, a Fleet Reserve certificate C
has to be issued to such a person on enrolment in Fleet Reserve.
22. It is clear from the above that liability to serve in the Indian
Fleet Reserve, if required, as stipulated in Regulation 269, is only when
such a Sailor is drafted into Indian Fleet Reserve. There has to be, thus,
a positive act of enrolment in the Fleet Reserve. A person who is enrolled D
as Artificer in the Indian Navy and completes 10 years’ of service, cannot
presume that he stands automatically enrolled in Fleet Reserve.
23. So far as Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, there was no
such enrolment in Fleet Reserve.
E
24. In fact, the appellants were conscious of the aforesaid position.
That was the reason that Principle of Promissory Estoppel was invoked
on the ground that since their enrolment was prior to July 03, 1976, the
decision of the Government of India to discontinue transfer of Sailors
into Fleet Reserve as contained in communication dated July 03, 1976 is
not binding on them. Even if we proceed on that basis, the legal position F
that has been culled out from the relevant statutory provision and
enumerated above, clearly shows that there was no promise held out to
these appellants that after the completion of continuous service of 10
years as Sailors, they would be drafted into Fleet Reserve. The Tribunal
has correctly remarked that at the time of initial enrolment no recruit G
can be given any guarantee/promise of his being enrolled into Fleet
Reserve as his performance in the active service and recommendations
he receives would decide his eligibility for enrolment into Fleet Reserve.
Therefore, even prior to the promulgation of policy for discontinuance of
drafting into Fleet Reserve from 1976, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A clearly at liberty to decide if a Sailor is to be enrolled into Fleet Reserve
or not. It may be pertinent to mention that the aforesaid view of ours
has not been taken for the first time. We are not treading on unchartered
territory. Precisely, this very question has been decided by a three Judge
Bench of this Court in T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.1.
The factual background in which the aforesaid judgment is rendered is
B
identical as can be seen from the following question posed therein for
determination:
“25. In the absence of an express order of the competent
authority to take the applicants on the Fleet Reserve Service, the
moot question is: whether the applicants can be treated as deemed
C to be in the Fleet Reserve Service on account of the stipulation in
the appointment letter—that on completion of 10 years of naval
service as a Sailor, they may have to remain on Fleet Reserve
Service for another 10 years. That condition in the appointment
letter cannot be read in isolation. The governing working
D conditions of Sailors must be traced to the provisions in the 1957
Act or the Regulations framed thereunder concerning service
conditions. From the provisions in the 1957 Act, there is nothing to
indicate that the Sailor after appointment or enrolment is
“automatically” entitled to continue in Fleet Reserve Service
after completion of initial active service period of 10 years. The
E provisions, however, indicate that on completion of initial active
service of 10 years or enhanced period as per the amended
provisions is entitled to take discharge in terms of Section 16 of
the Act. The applicants assert that none of the applicants opted
for discharge. That, however, does not mean that they would or in
F fact have continued to be on the Fleet Reserve Service after
expiration of the term of active service as a Sailor. There ought to
have been an express order issued by the competent authority to
draft the applicant concerned in the Fleet Reserve Service. In the
absence of such an order, on completion of the term of service of
engagement, the Sailor concerned would stand discharged.
G Concededly, retention on the Fleet Reserve Service is the
prerogative of the employer, to be exercised on case-to-case
basis. In the present case, however, on account of a policy
decision, the Fleet Reserve Service was discontinued in terms of
Notification dated 3-7-1976.”
H 1
(2017) 4 SCC 218
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 391
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

25. The Court reproduced the aforesaid notification dated July 7, A
1976 and continue with the discussion in the following manner:
“27. As noted hitherto, none of the relevant provisions even
remotely suggest that the Sailor is “automatically” transferred to
the Fleet Reserve Service. Whereas, it is expressly provided that
on expiration of the term of service of engagement the Sailor B
would be placed on Fleet Reserve Service only if an express
order in that behalf is passed by the competent authority to draft
him on the Fleet Reserve and not otherwise. Section 16 of the
Act merely gives an option to the Sailor to take a discharge after
expiration of term of service of engagement. It is not a deeming
provision that if such option is not exercised by the Sailor C
concerned, he would be treated as having been drafted on the
Fleet Reserve Service for another 10 years “automatically”.
28. Regulation 269 spells out the conditions of service. It
reinforces the position that the services of a Sailor would be
continued “so long required” or “if required”. The second part of D
sub-regulation (1) of that Regulation uses the expression “if
required”, for further 10 years’ service in the Indian Fleet
Reserve, subject to the provisions of the Regulations for the
Indian Fleet Reserve. This view taken by the Tribunal (Principal
Bench, New Delhi) in Niranjan Chakroborty v. Union of
India [Niranjan Chakroborty v. Union of India, 2010 SCC E
OnLine AFT 803] commends to us.
29. As aforesaid, on introducing the new policy on 3-7-1976, the
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 F
continue till completion of 15 years, who, then became eligible for
“service pension” having qualifying service.
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 G
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 Regulation 92 for grant of reservist pension. For, to qualify
for the reservist pension, he must be drafted to the Fleet Reserve
H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A 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 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...”
B
26. In the absence of any such assurance of enrolment of
drafting into Fleet Reserve, at the time of initial recruitment, the
Principle of Promissory Estoppel cannot be invoked. The Tribunal has,
in this behalf, taken note of certain judgments2 of this Court and on that
basis rightly concluded that mere recruitment/enrolment for active as
C well as reserve service without making any order of transfer to Indian
Fleet Reserve under Regulation 269 of Navy Regulation Part III as well
as Regulations of Indian Fleet Reserve, it cannot be treated that any
promise was accorded to the appellants about drafting into Fleet
Reserve, at any time. We would, at this juncture, like to reproduce para
D 31 of T.R. Das case.
“31. The original applicants contend that if the Government Policy
dated 3-7-1976 is applied to the serving Sailors, inevitably, it will
result in retrospective application thereof to their detriment. That
is forbidden by Section 184-A of the Act. This argument does not
commend to us. In that, the effect of the Government Policy is to
E disband the establishment of the Reserve Fleet Service with
effect from 3-7-1976. As found earlier, drafting of Sailors to the
Reserve Fleet Service was not automatic, but dependent on an
express order to be passed by the competent authority in that
behalf on case-to-case basis. The Sailors did not have a vested or
F accrued right for being placed in the Reserve Fleet Service. Hence,
no right of the Sailors in active service was affected or taken
away because of the Policy dated 3-7-1976...”
27. It would, however, be pertinent to mention here that in T.R.
Das, though the Court had specifically held that such direct Entry
Artificers were not entitled to reservist pension, they were entitled for
G
special pension, in terms of Regulation 95 of the Pension Regulations.
The relevant portion of the discussion which ensued on this aspect is
contained in paras 34 and 36 of the judgment in T.R. Das and these
paras read as under:
2
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1979) 2 SCC
H 409; Bakul Cashew Co. & Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Quilon & Anr. (1986) 2 SCC 365
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 393
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

“34. The next question is whether the Sailors appointed before A
1973 were entitled to a special pension, in terms of Regulation 95
of the Pension Regulations. Indeed, this is a special provision and
carves out a category of Sailors, to whom it must apply.
Discretion is vested in the Central Government to grant special
pension to such Sailors, who fall within the excepted category.
B
Two broad excepted categories have been noted in Regulation
95. Firstly, Sailors who have been discharged from their duties in
pursuance of the government policy of reducing the strength of
establishment of the Indian Navy; or secondly, of reorganisation,
which results in paying off of any ships or establishment. In the
present case, clause (i) of Regulation 95 must come into play, in C
the backdrop of the policy decision taken by the Government as
enunciated in the Notification dated 3-7-1976. On and from that
date, concededly, the Fleet Reserve Service has been
discontinued. That, inevitably results in reducing the strength of
the establishment of the Fleet Reserve of the Indian Navy to that
D
extent, after coming into force of the said policy. None of the
Sailors have been or could be drafted to the Fleet Reserve after
coming into force of the said policy—as that establishment did
not exist anymore and the strength of establishment of the Indian
Navy stood reduced to that extent. Indisputably, the Sailors
appointed prior to 3-7-1976, had the option of continuing on the E
Fleet Reserve Service after expiration of their active service/
empanelment period. As noted earlier, in respect of each
applicants the appointment letter mentions the period of
appointment as 10 years of initial active service and 10 years
thereafter as Fleet Reserve Service, if required. The option to
F
continue on the Fleet Reserve Service could not be offered to
these applicants and similarly placed Sailors, by the Department,
after expiration of their empanelment period of 10 years or less
than 15 years as the case may be. It is for that reason, such
Sailors were simply discharged on expiration of their active
service/empanelment period. In other words, on account of G
discontinuation of the Fleet Reserve establishment of the Indian
Navy, in terms of Policy dated 3-7-1976 it has entailed in reducing
the strength of establishment of the Indian Navy to that extent.
xxx xxx xxx
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A 36. Thus understood, all Sailors appointed prior to 3-7-1976 and
whose tenure of initial active service/empanelment period expired
on or after 3-7-1976 may be eligible for a special pension under
Regulation 95, subject, however, to fulfilling other requirements.
In that, they had not exercised the option to take discharge on
expiry of engagement (as per Section 16 of the 1957 Act) and yet
B
were not and could not be drafted by the competent authority to
the Fleet Reserve because of the policy of discontinuing the Fleet
Reserve Service w.e.f. 3-7-1976. The cases of such Sailors (not
limited to the original applicants before the Tribunal) must be
considered by the competent authority within three months for
C grant of a “special pension” from three years prior to the date of
application made by the respective Sailor and release
payment after giving adjustment of gratuity and
death-cum-retirement-gratuity (DCRG) already paid to them from
arrears. They shall be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. on the
arrears, till the date of payment.”
D
28. We, thus, answer question no. 1 in the negative and hold that
the appellants are not entitled to count 50% of the Fleet Reserve as they
were never drafted into the said reserve. Consequently, the appellants
are not entitled to reservist pension. However, their cases would be
considered for grant of special pension on same lines as was done in
E T.R. Das judgment and directed in para 36 of the said judgment.
Question No. 2 - Whether the applicants Nos. 2 to 5 were
entitled to be treated at par with the Apprentice Entry Artificers for
pension purposes only on the ground that both of them belong to the
same homogeneous class of Artificers?
F
29. Insofar as Apprentice Entry Artificers are concerned they
are getting pension and the appellants’ claim that since Artificer is one
homogeneous class, whether the Entry thereto is after completing the
Apprenticeship course or it is a direct entry (as in the case of Appellants)
all the Artificers are to be treated alike. There is no quarrel about this
G proposition. However, in the instant case, we are concerned with the
question as to whether the appellants are eligible for service pension
even after they have rendered only 10 years of service (as they are held
not entitled to count any period of Fleet Reserve in which they were
never drafted). Had Apprentice Artificers also got the pension on
H
EX NAVY DIRECT ENTRY ARTIFICERS ASSOCIATION 395
& ORS. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

rendition of 10 years’ service, there would have been some force in the A
argument of the appellants. However, that is not so. As already noted
above, insofar as Apprentice Entry Artificers are concerned, they had
undergone 4 years’ training in Naval establishment. Thereafter, they
were advanced to the rank of Artificer V and their initial engagement of
10 years’ active service commenced. After one year in the rank of
B
Artificer Vth Class, these Apprentice Entry Artificers were advanced
to the rank of Artificer acting IVth Class. In their cases, the training
period of four years has been counted for considering their eligibility for
the purpose of pension. This has happened pursuant to the judgment of
this Court in Anuj Kumar Dey & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.3. In
the cases of Apprentice Entry Artificers, the Government had refused C
to reckon the period for the purpose of pension. The question before
this court was as to whether the training period spent on Apprentice
Artificers was liable to be taken into account for pension purposes. The
Court decided the question in favour of the Apprentice Entry Artificers.
Thus, these Apprentice Entry Artificers became entitled to pension on
D
the inclusion of training period towards the service. Their case is, therefore,
entirely different from the appellant’ who are Direct Entry Artificers
and had no benefit of such training.
30. An attempt was made by learned counsel for appellants to
argue that Anuj Kumar Dey does not lay down correct law as the E
training period could not have been reckoned for calculating qualifying
period for pension. However, it is not open to the appellants to raise such
an argument. In the first place, this argument would not enure to the
benefit of the appellants as it would not entitle them to pension in any
case. Even if the contention of the appellants is presumed as correct,
the only effect thereof would be to hold that even Apprentice Entry F
Artificer are not entitled to pension. We may note, however, that learned
counsel for appellants was candid in his submission that he did not want
Apprentice Entry Artificers to be deprived of their pension. Secondly, in
any case, in the absence of Apprentice Entry Artificers, such an argument
cannot be considered. Thirdly, the law laid down in Anuj Kumar Dey
G
has held the filed for more than 20 years and there is no reason to upset
the same. For all these reasons, we reject the contention and answer
Question no. (2) against the appellants.

3
(1997) 1 SCC 366
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R.

A 31. As a consequence, this appeal stands dismissed insofar as
claim for reservist pension is concerned. However, their cases for grant
of special pension shall be considered as directed above.
No order as to costs.

B
Nidhi Jain Appeal dismissed.

C

D

E

F

G

H