1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2257 OF 2007 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 306 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2257 OF 2007 Tapan Kanti Dutta Majumdar … Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents. Mr. Sham Mehta i/b Satendra Kumar for Petitioner. Ms. R.R. Shetty for Respondents. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 14th October, 2009. P.C. 1 This petition is not on board. It is taken on board by consent of the parties and heard finally. 2 By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 20th April, 2006, by which his application for grant of pension for the services that he rendered for the Navy has been rejected. The relevant facts are that the Petitioner served with 2 the Navy from 1956 to 1970. After his retirement from Navy, he joined the services of Directorate of Warship in the year 1970 and continued to serve till 1997. On his retirement from the service of the Directorate of Warship, he made a request that service rendered by him in Navy should be taken into consideration for the purpose of working out his pension under the Directorate of Warship. That application was granted and his pension was worked out after taking into consideration his services in the Navy. It is pertinent to note here that at that time in Navy there was no pension scheme. It appears that thereafter Pension was made applicable to the Navy and therefore, the Petitioner made an application that he should be given Pension for the services that he rendered in Navy and if that is done he is willing to refund the amount that he has received as pension from the Directorate of Warship because of his services in Navy is taken into consideration for computing his entitlement of Pension under the Directorate of Warship. This application has been rejected by the communication dated 20th April, 2006 relying on the Regulation No.83 of the Pension Regulations. The Petitioner made another representation pointing out that the reliance on the Regulation No. 83 cannot 3 be placed because Regulation 83 does not apply. Even that representation was rejected by letter dated 17th January, 2007. Thus, the petitioner is before the court challenging the rejection of his representation relying on Regulation No.83 of the Navy Pension Regulations. 3 We heard learned counsel for both the sides. Regulation No.83 is relevant for deciding the issue involved in the Petition which reads as under: “83 Counting of former service for pension and gratuity – (1) In the case of sailors who have to their credit former service of the nature specified in column 2 of the table below and who had not been dismissed from their former service, a competent authority may, if they are re-employed, permit them to count their former service towards pension and gratuity to the extent specified in column 3 of that table, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified in column 4 thereof. 4 Perusal of Regulation No.83 shows that it is applicable for counting of former services of a person who is in the service 4 of Navy, rendered by him some where else for grant of Pension for his Navy Service. It is thus obvious that Regulation No. 83 is not at all attracted in the present case. Therefore, in our opinion following order would meet the ends of justice: O R D E R i) The communication dated 20th January, 2006 and 17th January, 2007 is set aside. The Respondent is directed to consider the application of the Petitioner for grant of Pension afresh in accordance with law. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to submit representation raising all the contentions that may be available to him with the documents on which the Petitioner propose to rely on and submit the same to the Respondent within a period of two weeks from today. The Respondent shall make appropriate order in accordance with the law on the representation/application of the Petitioner and decide the same as expeditiously as possible in any case within a period of three months from the date of receiving of the representation from the Petitioner. ii) Rule made absolute. Writ Petition is disposed of, no order as to costs. 5 iii) By consent of the parties, Notice of Motion No. 306 of 2009 is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). Notion of Motion is disposed of accordingly. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)