IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16720 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- SUNIL BABU, AGED 37, S/O. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, KUNNATHRIKKAYIL HOUSE, VILOONNI.P.O, KOTTAYAM-08. BY ADV. SRI.DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-11. 2. AIR OFFICER IN CHRGE, AIR FORCE RECORDS OFFICE, SUIBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI-10. 3. CHIEF AIR STAFF, AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI-11. 4. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION), ALLAHABAD. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) NO.16720 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- The petitioner was appointed as an Air Craftsman (Technical) in the Indian Air Force on 31.12.1987. His original engagement in the Air Force was for 20 years. But he sought for premature discharge and it was granted to him as evidenced by Exhibit P1 order with effect from 31.3.2001. Exhibit P1 shows that at the time of the discharge of the petitioner he had rendered 13 years and 3 months' service. The reasons for his discharge is given as “at his own request before fulfilling the conditions of his engagement”. It is further shown that he had reserve liability of two years. 2. Petitioner then applied for pension which was rejected under Exhibit P6 order wherein it is stated that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 31.12.1987 and discharged from service on 31.3.2001 at his own request before fulfilling the conditions of his enrollment. As per Regulation 121 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, W.P(C) NO. 16720 OF 2008 -: 2 :- 1961, the minimum required qualifying service to earn service pension is 15 years and therefore petitioner is not eligible for grant of service pension. That has been challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. A statement has been filed by the Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner's period of engagement was 20 years regular and 6 years reserve. Thus the petitioner does not fall under the category of reserve since the petitioner had been prematurely discharged from service on his own request. The qualifying services considered by this Court in Exhibits P2 to P4 judgments were in relation to persons whose period of engagement was less then 20 years. That is not the case of the petitioner. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 5. Regulations 136(b) and 137 of the Air Force Pension Regulations are referred to by the petitioner. Therefore, they W.P(C) NO. 16720 OF 2008 -: 3 :- are extracted hereunder. “136. (a) ............ 136(b) A reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension and whose period of engagement for regular service was extended, and whose qualifying service is less than the total period of engagement but not less than 15 years may, on completion of the period of engagement or on earlier discharge from the reserve for any cause other than at his own request, be granted a reservist pension at the above rate of or the gratuity in lieu. 137. An individual who is prematurely transferred to the reserve under the regulations may be granted the reservist pension irrespective of the period of regular service rendered, provided he has completed, on discharge, the period of combined regular and reserve service according to the terms of his engagement and the entire service is qualifying”. W.P(C) NO. 16720 OF 2008 -: 4 :- 6. Regulation 136(b) is not, obviously, applicable to the case of the petitioner. Because, admittedly, his discharge from service was on his own request. The contention of the petitioner on the basis of Regulation 136(b) is, therefore, untenable. 7. On a reading of Exhibit P6, it seems that the petitioner had only requested for regular pension, by contending that the period of reserve service of two years must be added to the period of his regular service. That was rejected on a reference to Regulation 121 of Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961 and to that extent the stand taken in Exhibit P6 is correct. If that be so, it does not warrant any interference. 8. Petitioner seems to have developed a case for reservist pension only at the stage of the Writ Petition and therefore the respondents cannot be found fault with for not considering the petitioner's claim and deciding it with reference to the Pension Regulations. But since the petitioner has now raised a claim under Regulation 137 of the Pension Regulations, it would be appropriate that the competent W.P(C) NO. 16720 OF 2008 -: 5 :- authority considers the petitioner's case in terms of Regulation 137 of the Pension Regulations. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for reservist pension under Regulation 137 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force and pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner may produce a copy of the judgment before the 4th respondent for compliance. V. GIRI, JUDGE. vsv