[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY PROGINAL CIVIL WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITIONL PETITIONL PETITIONL NO. 307 of 1998 NO. 307 of 1998 NO. 307 of 1998 Lt. Cdr. Malkiat Singh Khela (Retired) residing at C-3/18, Kubera Park, Kondwa Road, Lulla Nagar, Pune 411 040, Maharashtra ...Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary (Navy) Ministry of defence, South Block, New Delhi 110 011. 2. Chief of theNaval Staff Naval Headquarters, New Delhi 110 011. ...Respondents. Mr. V.Y.Sanglikar for the petitioner. Mr. Y.R.Mishra alongwith Mr. D.A.Dube i/b. Captain R.K.Mehta for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar : Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar : Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar and and and Sri A.A.Sayed, J. Sri A.A.Sayed, J. Sri A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : July 22, 2008. : July 22, 2008. : July 22, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.) JUDGMENT (PER R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.) JUDGMENT (PER R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.) 1. Heard. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the action on the part of the respondents withdrawing /stopping the pension which was earlier ordered to be paid to the petitioner and for further direction to the respondents to restore the pensionary [ 2 ] benefits to the petitioner forthwith with retrospective effect. 3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner joined Indian Navy in October 1971 and he was commissioned as Sub-Lieutenant in Executive Branch (Pilot) and in the year 1973, he was awarded Nao Seva Medal on 26th January, 1985. In the month of April he was subjected to Court Martial wherein he was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 68 of the Navy Act, 1957 and was punished to suffer forfeiture of 36 months seniority in the rank of Lieutenant Commander in June, 1993. In June, 1993 itself, the petitioner had to undergo coronary artery By-pass Surgery at Apollo Hospital Chennai. He took voluntary retirement on 30th June, 1993. Pension Benefits were sanctioned to him on 7th March, 1994. On 16th November, 1994, petitioner received telegram informing him about the stoppage of his pensionary benefits. On 23rd February, 1995, he received a notice for refund of the pensionary benefits already received by him. The petitioner resisted the claim of the respondents by a letter dated 3rd April, 1995. The respondents by letter dated 8th August, 1995 informed the petitioner to refund overpayments in a sum of Rs. 1,28,102/- further clarifying that the petitioner was [ 3 ] entitled only for gratuity and death-cum-retirement benefits. The petitioner filed representation against the said decision and requested for restoration of the pensionary benefits. The said representation was rejected on 1st August, 1996 and a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 21st November, 1996 for recovery of excess amount of pensionary benefits paid to the petitioner. On 20th June, 1997, the petitioner replied the said show cause notice, however, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed repayment/ refund of the said amount. Hence, the present petition. 4. While challenging the action on the part of the respondents, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are not entitled to deny the pensionary benefits to the petitioner as in terms of rules of law, he had sought voluntary retirement after completion of 20 yeas of service in Navy. It is his further contention that mere punishment by way of forfeiture of seniority in rank for three years does not amount to forfeiture of service and, therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner had not rendered 20 years service in Navy. It is his further contention that the respondents knowing well that the petitioner was subjected to court [ 4 ] martial proceeding and imposition of the said penalty had fixed the pensionary benefits and, therefore, they are now estopped from claiming refund of the said amount or discontinuation of the payment released towards pensionary benefits to the petitioner. In any case, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, stoppage of pensionary benefits already ordered to be paid to the petitioner cannot be done without hearing the petitioner and without affording opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case, as it would amount to violation of basic principles of natural justice. In the case in hand before stoppage of pensionary benefits opportunity of hearing was not given and, therefore, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the action on the part of the respondents in that regard is totally illegal. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision in case of MAJ. (RETD) HARI CHAND PAHWA VS. UNION OF INDIA MAJ. (RETD) HARI CHAND PAHWA VS. UNION OF INDIA MAJ. (RETD) HARI CHAND PAHWA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND AND AND ANORHTER, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 221, ANORHTER, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 221, ANORHTER, reported in 1995 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 221, inin in case case case of MAJOR G.S.SODHI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported of MAJOR G.S.SODHI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported of MAJOR G.S.SODHI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported inin in (1991) 2 SCC 371, UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. (1991) 2 SCC 371, UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. (1991) 2 SCC 371, UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. JANGAM JANGAM JANGAM ANANT AMRUTLING, reported in 2006(5) Mh.L.J. ANANT AMRUTLING, reported in 2006(5) Mh.L.J. ANANT AMRUTLING, reported in 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 463, 463, 463, in the matter of RAM UJAREY VS. UNION OF INDIA in the matter of RAM UJAREY VS. UNION OF INDIA in the matter of RAM UJAREY VS. UNION OF INDIA reported reported reported in (1999) 1 SCC 685. in (1999) 1 SCC 685. in (1999) 1 SCC 685. 5. Our attention is also sought to be drawn to the [ 5 ] letter addressed by the Government to the Chief of Army Staff, The Chief of Naval Staff and The Chief of Air Staff on 31st January, 2001 had highlighted the necessity for parity in the matter of provisions of law pertaining to the payment of the pensionary benefits to the retired persons from the defence forces. It is also sought to be contended that there is no specific order passed by the Authority forfeiting the pensionary benefits and, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to deny the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the provisions of law clearly reveal that forfeiture of seniority in rank amounts to forfeiture in service. Once such forfeiture in seniority in rank is awarded in exercise of the powers under Section 82 sub-clause (12) of the Navy Act it results in forfeiture of service to that extent. The said provision of law which provides that "The punishment of forfeiture of seniority shall involve the loss of the benefit of service included in the seniority forfeited for the purposes of pay, pension, gratuity, promotion and such other purpose, as may be prescribed, provided that such pay, pension, gratuity and promotion and other purposes depend upon [ 6 ] such service". In that connection our attention was also drawn to regulation 20 and appendix III to the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. It was also sought to be contended that since the petitioner was illegally collecting the pensionary benefits, in terms of provisions of law the authorities are empowered to take prompt action in that regard, considering the fact that the amount paid is a public money and therefore no fault can be found with the action taken in that regard by the respondents. It was also sought to be contended that in any case, show cause notice was issued for recovery of the amount paid in the name of pensionary benefits to the petitioner over and above and in excess of the amount legally payable to the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has not made out any case for issuing directions to the respondents sought in the matter. 7. It is not in dispute that the pensionary benefits are governed by the provisions of Navy Act read with the Regulations framed by the Navy in exercise of powers under Section 184 of the Navy Act i.e. Navy (Pension) Regulations 1964. Section 81 of the Navy Act deals with the subject of punishment and Sub-section (f) of Section 81 of the Navy Act deals [ 7 ] with the forfeiture of seniority in rank in the case of officers [and master chief petty officers]. The competent authority on finding Navy personal being guilty of the offence for which he was prosecuted in the court martial can subject him to the punishment of forfeiture of seniority in rank. It is not in dispute that the said punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner was Lieutenant Commander at the relevant time. It is also not in dispute, besides being matter of record, that the petitioner was subjected to court martial and ultimately he was awarded with the punishment of forfeiture of 36 months seniority in rank of Lieutenant Commander under order dated 11th April, 1989. 8. Regulation 19 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 (for short "the said Regulations") provides that minimum period of service qualifying for pension shall be fifteen years in the case of late entrants and twenty years in other cases. It is not in dispute that in order to enable the petitioner to claim pensionary benefits, in terms of rule 19 he was required to complete 20 years of service. 9. The regulation 15(1) provides that no pension shall be granted to an officer who is dismissed with [ 8 ] disgrace from service. Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that in case of an officer who is dismissed otherwise than with disgrace from the service, the question whether any pension shall be granted and if so, the rate of such pension shall be decided by the Central Government provided that the pension, if granted, shall not exceed the rate which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on the same date. 10. Regulation 30 of the said Regulations provide for voluntary retirement from the service, and states that an officer who retired from service voluntarily shall not be eligible for disability pension. Regulation 20 provides that the periods of service of officers in the general list and the branch list which qualify for pension under these regulations shall be as specified in Appendix III. Clause (1) of Appendix III specifies the period of service which is necessary to qualify for pension and it provides that period of service as a permanent commissioned officer and, if it is preceeded without a break, by service of one or more of the following categories subject to the refund to the Government of the gratuity, if any, other than war gratuity, received in respect of such service namely :- [ 9 ] (a) Service as commissioned officer in the Army, Indian Navy or Air Force irrespective of the type of commission ; (b) Mobilised commissioned service in the Indian Naval Reserve/ Indian Naval Volunteer Reserve or called up service as an officer of the late Army in India Reserve of officers or called up commissioned service in the Indian Air Force Volunteer Reserve; (c) Embodied or called out commissioned service as an officer of the late Indian Territorial Force or of the late Auxiliary Force ( India) or of the Territorial Army : Provided that - (a) any service which was forfeited for seniority, and (b) any period of unauthorised absence unless pay and allowances are admitted for the period of absence shall not be regarded as qualifying service; Plain reading of the above provisions comprised under sub- Clause (a) of Appendix III which is the continuation of Regulation 20 would reveal that any service forfeited for seniority would not be available [ 10 ] for calculation of total period of service. Moment it is established that under Order dated 11th April, 1989, the seniority of the petitioner in rank for 3 years was forfeited, it automatically resulted in forfeiture of three years service of the petitioner by virtue of Regulation 20 read with Clause (a) of Appendix III. Being so, the contention that the petitioner had completed 20 years service cannot be accepted once it is established that he was not entitled for three years period of service which was forfeited on account of the said order passed in the court martial proceeding. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner had completed only 17 years service for the purpose of consideration of entitlement of pensionary benefits. Obviously, therefore, the provisions of Regulation 19 were not satisfied to claim pensionary benefits. 11. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents had understood that the forfeiture of seniority would not result in forfeiture of service and therefore pensionary benefits were granted to the petitioner under Order dated 7th March, 1994. Undoubtedly, the letter dated 7th March, 1994 addressed to the petitioner by the Officer of Navy discloses award of pensionary benefits to the petitioner consequent to his voluntarily retirement [ 11 ] from services of Navy. At the same time it is seen that Regulation 8 of the said Regulations provide that pension or other benefits granted under the said Regulation may, in special circumstances, as the Central Government may determine, be withheld, suspended or discontinued, in whole or in part, and in any exceptional case, the payment of the whole or any part of any pension or other benefit may, by order of the Central Government, be made to the wife or other dependent of the person otherwise eligible thereto. Regulation 210 deals with the subject of overpayment of pension. Sub-clause (1) thereof provides that overpayment of pension in India due to an error in law (including those due to misinterpretation of any of these regulations) shall not be recovered, but shall be reported by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) to the Central Government through the Controller General of Defence Accounts. Further provides that in case in which there is a doubt or a difference of opinion between the Controller or Defence Accounts (Pensions) and the competent authority as to whether the overpayment was due to an error in law, or due to misinterpretation of any of these regulations, shall be submitted to the Central Government through the Controller General of Defence Accounts for orders. [ 12 ] 12. Clause (2) of Regulation 210 provides over-payment of pension due to any other reason ( including those involving fraud) shall be dealt with as enumerated thereunder. Sub clause (1) thereof provides that if a pension is payable, further payments shall be made at the correct rate and the overpayment recovered in instalments of one-third of the pension. If the circumstances leading to overpayment disclose fraud on the part of the recipient, and in the opinion of the Controller of Defence Accounts ( Pensions) the same warrants the stoppage of the pension in full or recovery of overpayments in instalments of more than one-third of the pension, a report shall be submitted (through the Controller General of Defence Accounts in cases of pensions drawn outside India) to the Competent authority, who shall decide each case on its merits and communicate their decision to the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions). Further adjustments as may be necessary shall be carried out by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) on receipt of such orders. If no pension is admissible, payment shall cease immediately the error is detected and a report of the circumstances leading to the overpayment shall be submitted (through Controller General of Defence Accounts in cases of pensions drawn outside India) to the competent authority. In terms of this regulation [ 13 ] of cessation of payment of pension in cases where no pension is payable applies in case of any objection on the part of audit as well as that there is no objection on the part of the Audit also. 13. The provisions regarding the recovery of the amount paid as the pension in case where no pension is payable are very clear. The regulation clearly provides that in cases of payment of amount as the pension to a person who is not entitled to be paid such pension and being revealed to the competent authority, immediate action of stoppage of pension is expected. Having considered the facts in the case in hand, exactly that has been done by the respondents. Moment it was revealed to the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to claim pensionary benefits on account of the fact that he had not completed 20 years of service in Navy and therefore, there was no compliance of the provisions of Regulation 19 and 20 of the said Regulations and that therefore he was not entitled to claim pensionary benefits, immediate action was taken for stoppage of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Having came to know the facts, the respondents proceeded for recovery of the amount which was illegally paid to the petitioner as the pension. [ 14 ] 14. It is sought to be contended that there is no order by the Competent Authority forfeiting the pensionary benefits already ordered to be awarded to the petitioner. The contention does not appear to be borne out from the record. The letter dated 23rd February, 1995 placed on record by the petitioner himself, which was addressed to the petitioner by the SCSO Deputy Director (Pension) for Chief of the Naval Staff clearly discloses that it has been intimated by the CDA(N) Bombay that the petitioner was not entitled draw any pensionary benefits except the service gratuity and DCRG in view of forfeiture of 36 months seniority which was not condoned by the Chief of the Naval Staff on judicial review. Obviously, therefore, the authorities intimated the petitioner about the decision to discontinue the payment of pensionary benefits and the same discloses a decision in that regard on the basis of factual matrix which revealed that the petitioner was not entitled to claim such pensionary benefits on account of having suffered the punishment of forfeiture of 36 months seniority in rank which consequently resulted in forfeiture of service for three years. In such circumstances, even assuming that there was non-complaince of a technical requirement of having a specific order of forfeiture of service of the petitioner, the petitioner could not [ 15 ] expect the writ court to interfere in such circumstances to grant the benefits to which on the basis of provisions of law he is not entitled to claim. No case for interference in the matter warrants merely on technical ground that the respondents have not placed on record the order of the authority forfeiting the pensionary benefits to the petitioner and on that count to direct the respondents to restore the pensionary benefits, which would virtually amount to passing an order contrary to the provisions of law. 15. The Apex Court in case of MAHARAJA CHINTAMANI MAHARAJA CHINTAMANI MAHARAJA CHINTAMANI SARAN SARAN SARAN NATH SAHADEO VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. NATH SAHADEO VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. NATH SAHADEO VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. reported reported reported in (1999) 8 SCC 16 held that in (1999) 8 SCC 16 held that in (1999) 8 SCC 16 held that "order lacking jurisdiction need not be set aside if the result would be the revival of an illegal order" Therefore refusal to interfere in such case would be justified as interference would result in revival of illegality." Same principle would apply in the case in hand. Entertaining the petition at the instance of the petitioner, who is not entitled to the pensionary benefits in the facts which are brought on record and directing the respondents to grant the pensionary [ 16 ] benefits to the petitioner would virtually result in directing the respondent to commit illegality and to act contrary to the provisions of law. 16. The contention that the order of forfeiture results in violation of basic principles of natural justice is also devoid of substance. Once the statutory provision not only empowers the authority to make it obligatory to take appropriate steps to avoid misuse of public money and illegal disbursement of public money, the contention on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been heard prior to such order of stoppage of pension, is devoid of substance. Undoubtedly, ex post facto hearing was available as the petitioner was served with show cause notice informing that the pension amount is illegally paid to the petitioner. In that case, the petitioner had put forth his say. In any case the petitioner has been heard at length even before this court apart from the opportunity which was available to the petitioner to put forth his contention in reply to the show cause notice, which was issued to him consequent to stoppage of his pensionary benefits. Being so, there is substantial compliance of rules of natural justice in this regard. Besides, it is well settled law that it being in the realm of administrative matters, the person [ 17 ] can not insist for personal hearing in each and every case unless statutory provisions require such personal hearing of the party. Taking into consideration the fact that there is statutory obligation caste upon the authority to take immediate action/ steps, once it is brought to the notice of the authority that the petitioner was not entitled to avail the pensionary benefits, no fault can be found with the action taken by the respondents. Being so, the contention on the part of the petitioner in this regard that there was violation of principles of natural justice has to be rejected as being devoid of substance. 17. As regards the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of MAJ. (RETD) HARI CHAND PAHWA, reported MAJ. (RETD) HARI CHAND PAHWA, reported MAJ. (RETD) HARI CHAND PAHWA, reported inin in 1995 1995 1995 Supp (1) SCC 221 Supp (1) SCC 221 Supp (1) SCC 221 (supra), rather than assisting the petitioner, justifies the action taken on the part of the respondents. The Apex Court had clearly ruled that :- " The Regulations which provided for the grant of pension can also provide for taking it away on justifiable ground. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant. His reply was considered and thereafter the President passed the order forfeiting the pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity." Undoubtedly in the case before the Apex Court, the authority had issued show cause notice before [ 18 ] forfeiting the pension. Facts in the case in hand clearly make it obligatory for the authority to take immediate steps for stoppage of pensionary benefits once it is revealed to the authority that the person who was awarded pensionary benefits was not entitled to the said benefits, no fault can be found with the authority having acted in accordance with regulations in that behalf. The ratio of the decision of the Apex Court, is that when the regulation makes specific provision that a particular action to be taken in particular action is expected in a specific situation or peculiar circumstances of facts, and if the authority acts accordingly, it cannot be said to be an illegal act. 18. MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR G.S.SODHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, reported G.S.SODHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, reported G.S.SODHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, reported inin in (1991) 2 SCC 371 (1991) 2 SCC 371 (1991) 2 SCC 371 was the decision of the Apex Court in the peculiar facts of that case. It has not laid down any law as such. Said decision is to the effect that irrespective of the regulation providing for immediate action on the part of the authority to take appropriate action to avid misuse of public money even in that case the authority needs to be