Holding

The petitioner is not entitled to a pension as he did not complete the requisite fifteen years of qualifying army service, and his service in the Lok Sahayak Sena does not count towards pensionable service.

Summary

Kamal Singh Ghugtyal, a former Havildar, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a pension under the Army Pension Regulations, claiming more than 15 years of service in the regular army, including a stint in the Lok Sahayak Sena (LSS). The respondents produced service records showing his actual army tenure amounted to only 10 years and 54 days and that his LSS service, being part of the National Volunteer Force, is not countable as army service under Regulations 132 and 126. The petitioner could not produce documentary evidence to substantiate his longer service claim, and his statements were found inconsistent with the official records. The Court examined the applicability of Regulations 132 and 126 and held that the petitioner had not satisfied the 15‑year qualifying service requirement. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no pension was awarded.

Issues considered

Whether service rendered in the Lok Sahayak Sena (National Volunteer Force) can be counted towards qualifying army service for pension under Regulation 132 of the Army Pension Regulations, 1961.
Whether the petitioner completed the minimum fifteen years of qualifying army service required for pension eligibility.
Whether inconsistencies between the petitioner’s statements and the service records affect his entitlement to pension.

Legislation cited

Army Pension Regulations, 1961 (Part I)s. Regulation 126, s. Regulation 132

Subjects

army pensionqualifying serviceRegulation 132Regulation 126Lok Sahayak SenaNational Volunteer ForceArticle 32writ petitionservice eligibility

Judgment

KAMAL SINGH GHUGTYAL
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

NOVEMBER 3, 1987

[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] B

--.( Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part I): Regulations

- ,(
Nos. 132 & 126: Entitlement to pension-Havaldar rendering less than
qualifying servic~Held not entitled to pension.

Regulation No. 132 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961
(Part I) prescribes minimum qualifying colour service of fifteen years c
for earning service pension. Regulation No. 126 provides for counting
of former service.

The petitioner's representation for pension was rejected on the
ground that he had not beeb in the Army service for a period of 15 years D
as required under the Army Pension Rules.
In the writ petition the petitioner claimed that he had served in
the Army from November 1939 to August 1948, when he was released in
the rank of Havaldar, that he was again recalled and served in the
-~
Army Supply Corps (MT) from July 1948 to July 1953 in the rank of
Havaldar, when he was again recalled by the Kumaon Regiment and E
served in the Lok Sahayak Sena from July 1953 to July 1956 in the
rank of Havaldar. He further stated that service rendered by him in the
LSS (third spell) should be treated as services in the army and he having
"" served for more than 15 years in the army was entitled to pension.
His claim that he was in the army service for over 19 years, was F
' contested by the respondents, who stated that the petitioner was enrol-
-\ led in the Army on November 24, 1940 and discharged from service
with effect from October 26, 194', that he was subsequently re-enrolled
in ASC (MT) with Army on March 8, 1948 and discharged from there
on May 20, 1952, and that he was re-enrolled with the Kumaon Regi-
ment on March 2, 1955 for Lok Sahayak Sena and discharged from G
there on September 2, 1957. It was further stated that the service
rendered by him in LSS was not countable towards pension and that his
~ service in the first two spells was 10 years and 54 days only.

The petitioner could not produce relevant documents in support
of his statement. H
769
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1988) I S.C.R.

Dismissing the writ petition,
A
HELD: The petitioner has not rendered 15 years of army service
to be able to get the benefit of army pension as required under the army
rules. (772F]

B The statements of the petitioner regarding the periods of service
rendered by him in the first and the second spell are inconsistent with his
record of service produced by the respondents at the hearing. (772D·EI >--
His service in the National Volunteer Force (LSS) cannot be
treated as army service countable towards pension. [7720)
c ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1702 _,A
\
of !986.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

D K.M.M. Khan Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner.

0.P. Sharma, Mrs. Subhadra and P. Parmeshwaran for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
B.C. RAY, J. The petitioner who was a HavaWar in the Army
(No. 4142276) has moved this writ petition praying for an order direct·
ing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to give pensionary benefit to the
petitioner as he has served about 19 years in the army as a Havaldar.
The petitioner has stated that in the first spell he has served in
F Kumaon Regiment from November, 1939 to August, 1947 during the
I
second world war. He was released from the army service in August,
1947 in the rank of Havaldar (No. 16235). The petitioner was again )·
recalled during Kashmir operations, in the Kumaon Regiment and he
served in the Army Supply Corps (MT) from July, 1948 to July, 1953 in
the rank of Havaldar (DUR-No. 6556074). The petitioner further
G stated that he was recalled from Army Supply Corps (MT) by Kumaon
Regiment and transferred to impart training in the Lok Sahayak Sena
of K.R.C. Platoon No. 28 where he served from July, 1953 to July,
1956 in the rank of Havaldar. As his job was to impart military training
to Lok Sahayak Sena which is like NCC, he retained a regular army
No. 4142276. The petitioner stated that in an alleged incident of stor·
H ing illicit arms in his house, there was a police raid and all his papers
K.S. GHUGTYAL v. U.O.l. (RAY, J.] 771

were taken away by the police and as such he had no papers left with A
him to prove his service in the regular army except a statement of
accounts QE 11/56, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure
P-2. It has been stated that the petitioner was intimated by a letter
dated 27.9,1983 issued by the District'Sanik Welfare and Resettlement
Office, Almora in reply to his representation for pension that he has
not been in the army service for a period of 15 years as required, to be B
entitled to get pension according to Army Pension Rules. His claim for
army pension was, therefore, rejected. This letter has been annexed as

- annexure P-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner has stated in the writ
petition that his service rendered in the LSS (third spell) should be
treated as service in the army and he having served for more than 15
years in the army is entitled to pension,
J c
An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respon-
dents sworn by Capt. P .E. Joseph. In para 1 of the said affidavit it has
been stated that the petitioner was originally enrolled with the
Kumaon Regiment on 24th November, 1940 and discharged from D
service with effect from 26th October, 1946. He was subsequently
re-enrolled in ASC (MT) with Army No. 6556074 on 8th March, 1948
and discharged from there on 20th May, 1952. It has been further
stated that in the third spell of service he was re-enrolled with the
.j Kumaon Regiment on 2nd March, 1955 for Lok Sahayak Sena and
allotted Army No. 4142276. He was discharged from there on 2nd E
September, 1957, It has been further stated in para 3 of the said
affidavit that the claim of the petitioner that he was in army service for
~ over 19 years was not based on facts. It has been further stated that his
service in the first two spells is 10 years and 54 days only and even if his
service with 29 LSS is counted towards qualifying service his total
, service would be less than 15 years. So he will not be entitled to F
\ pension as per the extent army rules. The petitioner on the other hand
·was unable to produce relevant documents in support of his statement
regarding the period of his service in the army rendered both in the
first and second spell of service. It appears from a letter dated 21st
October, 1982 issued by the Lieutenant, Sahayak Abhilekh Adhikari,
Asstt. Record Officer for OIC Records that the service rendered by G
the petitioner in LSS cannot be counted towards pension as the mem-
' hers of that unit are not treated as army personnel. This letter has been
·-{ annexed as annexure 'D' to the counter-affidavit. It has been further
stated in the affidavit that since the individual has not served in the
army as an incumbent for more than 15 years, he is not entitled to any
pension as contemplated under the army rules. H
\

772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R.

A A supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents \,.
verified by 2nd Lieutenant Jagdish Singh, Records Kumaon Regiment,
Ranikhet has been filed wherein it has been stated in para 9 that the
petitioner having not completed the required 15 years of service, was
not entitled to pension as per prevalent rules. It ~o appears from the
letter dated 3rd February, 1987 issued under the signature of Major,
B
Senior Record Officer for Officer-in-Charge addressed to the Organi-
sation Directorate, Adjutant General's .Branch, Army Headquarters
that since the petitioner had not completed 15 years pensionable
service in both the spells, he was not entitled to service pension as per
the existing orders. It has been further stated therein that the petition-
er's service in 28 National Volunteer Force (LSS) training team was not
c countable towards pension for which necessary clarification had al- \
ready been given by the CDA(P), Allahabad vide letter dated 21st jA,
October, 1982.

The respondents at the time of hearing produced the relevant
records wherefrom it appears that the petitioner has not completed 15
D years of army service as his service in the LSS can not be treated as
army service. It is also evident that the statements of the petitioner
regarding the periods of service rendered by him in the first and the
second spell are inconsistent with his record of service as mentioned in
the letter dated February 3, 1987, annexed as annexure 'B' to the
supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents as
E well as from the letter issued under the signatures of Sahayak
Abhilekh Adhikari, Asstt. Record Officer for OIC Records dated
October 16, 1981, annexed as annexure P-4 to the writ petition. The
army regulation Nos. 126 and 132 were also placed before us in this
connection. We are constrained to hold that the petitioner has not
rendered 15 years of army service to be able to get the benefit of army
F pension as required under the army rules. Writ Petition is therefore, _)
dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs. _

P.S.S. Petition dismissed.