IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 3419 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 24, 2008 RANGA RAO SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ETC. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent findings of fact. The suit was filed for declaration to the effect that order dated 22.11.1986 was illegal, null and void and had no effect against the rights of the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff was entitled to service Gratuity, Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity and service pension, with effect from 1.7.1980. The basis for the claim was that the plaintiff was enrolled in the Army on 5.8.1962 and was discharged from service on 1.7.1980. The work and conduct of the appellant remained good. Since, he had rendered the qualifying service, he was entitled to service pension. The case of the RSA 3419 of 2007 2 plaintiff for pensionary benefits was kept pending till 22.11.1986, when the impugned order was passed. The defendants brought out the true facts before the Court to the effect that the plaintiff had not rendered the qualifying service. The plaintiff was declared a deserter and was apprehended at Mundiakhera on 22.6.1979 and was handed over to ASC Centre (South) on 18.7.1979. The plaintiff was tried in a Court Marshal on 11.8.1979 for commission of offence under Army Act 38(i) and was awarded punishment of reduction to rank. Having considered the facts noticed above, the following has been concluded by the first appellate Court in para-13 of its judgment:- “13. Rule 123 Sub-rule (a) sub-clause 1 of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961 Part-I, an individual who is a deserter from service forfeits his past service. As per rule 123 sub-rule (b) a person who has forfeited service under the provisions of the rule 123(a) of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961, Part-I but has not been dismissed shall, on completion of any period of three years further service in the colours and/or service in the reserve with exemplary conduct and without any red ink entry, be eligible to reckon the forfeited service towards pension or gratuity. In the case in hand, the appellant/plaintiff was discharged from service on completion of his terms of engagement on Ist July, 1980. Meaning thereby, he was discharged before completing the three years of exemplary service and resultantly, his service w.e.f. the date of enrollment to 11th August, 1979 remained forfeited. Had the appellant/plaintiff completed three years of exemplary service as contemplated under rule 123 sub-rule (a), the contention of the appellant/plaintiff must have carried weight with this court. The service pension claim of the RSA 3419 of 2007 3 appellant/plaintiff was adjudicated by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) Allahabad and it was rightly observed that the appellant/plaintiff was tried by Summary Court Martial on 11th August, 1979 under Army Act, Section 38 of an offence of desertion. The service prior to desertion was required to be restored by the competent authority as required under Rule 123 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. Since the forfeited service of the appellant/plaintiff could not be restored on account of his discharge, the clam of the appellant/plaintiff regarding pension is wholly unjustified.” Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the facts. Learned counsel has not been able to show any perverse reading of evidence or that any material has been ignored while considering the issues involved. Learned counsel has further not been able to cite any rule, which would entitle the appellant to the claim made in the civil suit. In view of the above, no substantial question of law, as raised in para-7 of the grounds of appeal, arises for consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. April 24, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE