IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 14065 of 1990 Date of Decision: 23.9.2009. Pahlad Singh --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- None for the petitioner. Ms. Geeta Singhwal, C.G.S.C for respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Since none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, I request Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate, present in the Court to assist the Court. I must place on record that the learned counsel has assisted the Court to my satisfaction. The petitioner was recruited in the Army under No. 6851709 on 17.8.1948 as Sepoy in the Army Ordinance Corps. On 23.5.1956 he was brought on Reserve. In the same year he was enrolled in the CRPF w.e.f. 24.12.1956 as a Constable. After serving for about 30 years the petitioner was retired from the CRPF in the year 1986. During this period he was also promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector. Pension for serving the CRPF was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in February, 1986. He was also granted pension for rendering service in Army w.e.f 16.8.1965. The petitioner is claiming pension from the Army w.e.f 16.8.1963. While the petitioner was getting aforesaid pensions, he applied to the Army vide letter dated 22.7.1987 asking for joint pension of the Army and the CRPF on the basis of the combined service rendered in the Army and the CRPF. The CWP. No. 14065 of 1990 -2- petitioner was asked to return the pension received by him from the Army w.e.f 17.8.1965 vide letter dated July, 1987 (Annexure P-6). The basic pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 377/- w.e.f. 17.2.1986. The petitioner disputed the quantum of pension sanctioned by the CRPF authorities. It is also stated that the petitioner was asked to give his option w.e.f. 12.11.1982 for counting the Army service. It is stated that the petitioner did not ante date the letter as desired. However, he signed his option letter dated 16.5.1989. Vide the aforesaid communication the petitioner asked for combined pension for rendering service in Army and CRPF. Petitioner also made representations for the aforesaid purpose. Vide letter dated 9.4.1999, addressed to the wife of the petitioner the CRPF authorities communicated to her that the husband of the petitioner was allowed pension by taking into consideration the Army service and as such he is no eligible to another pension from the CRPF. It is this order, which is impugned in the present petition. The respondents in the written statement have stated that the petitioner had completed 15 years of combined Colour and Reserve service and was not discharged from service and his service was extended by two years i.e. Up to 16.8.1965. This extension was to enable the petitioner to complete 15 years of qualifying service. It is further stated that the petitioner was paid the retaining fee applicable to the Reservists for the extended period. Finally, he was discharged w.e.f. 17.8.1965. The respondents have also referred to Rule 19 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and based upon the interpretation of the aforesaid rule, it is stated that on re- employment in civil the pensioner is required to refund his pension drawn CWP. No. 14065 of 1990 -3- on account of the earlier employment. Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner was required to refund the amount as demanded by the communication of December, 1982. The petitioner has claimed both the pensions. Regulation 155 of the Army Regulation, 1961 deals with the Reservists pension and reads as under:- “ 155. An OR reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension may be granted, on completion of the prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying service, of not less than 15 years, a reservist pension equal to 2/3rd of the lowest pension admissible to a sepoy, but in no case less than Rs. 375/- p.m. On his transfer to pension establishment either on completion of his term of engagement or prematurely, irrespective of the period of colour service.” From the reply filed by the respondents, it is apparent that the petitioner had completed 15 years of qualifying service for Colour service and as Reservist and thus was entitled to the Reservist pension in terms of the aforesaid regulation. In so far the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension for rendering service in CRPF is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner is governed by CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Rule 19 deals with the counting of military service rendered before civil employment. Sub Rule 1 provides that where a Govt. servant is re-employed in civil service or post before attaining the age of superannuation and who had rendered military service before such re-employment on his confirmation in civil service or post opted for either to continue to draw the military pension and in such a situation the service rendered in military shall not be counted as qualifying CWP. No. 14065 of 1990 -4- service or to cease to draw his pension and refund the same. Sub Rule 2 (a) further provides that such option has to be exercised within three months from the date of substantive appointment to the civil service. Sub Rule 13 of Rule 2 further provides that if no option is exercised within the period, referred to under sub Rule A the Govt. servant shall be deemed to have opted for clause A of sub rule 1, which inter alia provides that he will continue to draw the military pension and the period of military service shall not be counted for qualifying service. In the present case the petitioner though exercised the option but it was beyond the period prescribed. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner's option has not been taken into consideration for purpose of grant of pension. In terms of Rule 19 (1) (a) the petitioner continues to draw the military pension both for civil service and as Reservist having rendered 15 years of qualifying service. His option as having not been considered by the respondents, thus, he was not required to refund this amount to the Govt. of India as claimed by the respondents vide communication of the year 1980. In so far the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension for rendering service in CRPF is concerned the petitioner served the CRPF on civil post for more than 33 years with 5 years of weightage to be granted to the person, who has served on a civil post. Earlier qualifying period for grant of such pension was 28 years for earning full pension. The petitioner's total service rendered in CRPF is 30 years and by adding the weightage, he is also qualified to earn full pension from CRPF. No rule or law has been brought to my notice other than the aforesaid rules/regulations which inter alia create an embargo on the right of the petitioner under the given CWP. No. 14065 of 1990 -5- circumstances. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner to draw two pensions i.e from Army and the CRPF for rendering service in the respective organizations separately and having completed the qualifying period is justified. It is also to be noticed that the pension payable to a Reservist is in fact not a pension for rendering the Army service as such. A Reservist is a person, who is not bound by the strict Army rules of physical employment and is at the command of the army authorities as and when required. In this view of the matter the Reservist pension cannot be construed to be Army pension as is apparent from the Regualtion 155 itself. In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned action of the respondents and the demand for refund of the pension earned by the petitioner as a Reservist is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled to both the Reservist pension as also the pension payable to the petitioner under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 for rendering service on a civil post in CRPF. This petition is pending for the last about 19 years. It is not known as to whether the petitioner is still alive or not. In this situation, it is directed that the right of the petitioner for pension shall be confined during his life time and thereafter his family shall be entitled to the family pension as permissible under law. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.9.2009 lucky Whether to be reported to the Reporters? Yes.