Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificers Asso. vs The Union Of India Ministry Of Defence ...

Appellant No. 1 is a registered Association of Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificers, whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 5 are Ex Direct Entry Artificers of the Navy. Primarily, it is the cause of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 which is espoused by their Association as well i.e. appellant No. 1. These appellant Nos. 2 to 5 have rendered actual service of 10 years. For an Artificer to become entitled to pension, he is supposed to render minimum service of 15 years as per Regulation 78 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. The appellants claim that after their initial Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR engagement period of 10 years as Artificers, they were placed in Fleet Date: 2018.05.08 17:44:23 IST Reason: Reserve for a period of 10 years and as per Regulations, 50% of the period of Reserve is to be counted for the purpose of pension. On that 2 basis, it is claimed that 5 years period of Reserve would enure to their benefit and on adding this period of 5 years with actual service of 10 years, it is to be treated that they have rendered 15 years of service and are accordingly entitled to receive pensionary benefits. The respondents deny the placement of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 in Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years as claimed by the said appellants. Therefore, the moot question is as to whether the appellants, after rendering actual service of 10 years in the Navy, were drafted into Fleet Reserve or not.

2. The appellants had filed O.A. No. 8 of 2013 before the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AFT’), Regional Bench, Kochi in which prayer to grant benefit was sought by them. The AFT, however, has not accepted the case set up by the appellants. As a result, their O.A. stands dismissed by the AFT vide order dated January 22, 2014. The appellants thereafter filed review petition seeking review of that judgment which was also dismissed by the AFT on March 25, 2014. Simultaneously, however, prayer for leave to appeal to this Court have been granted by the AFT seeking authoritative pronouncement of this Court on the following questions of law formulated by the Tribunal:

4. We now advert to the seminal facts which have led to the present litigation.

5. In the Indian Navy, the sailors are of two classes, the Artificers class and the non-Artificer class. Artificers are considered to be skilled sailors and they work on sophisticated technologies of warships. For the Artificer Class, there are two channels of Entry, known as Apprentice Entry Artificers and Direct Entry Artificers. The appellants joined Indian Navy as Direct Entry Artificers. At the relevant point of time (i.e. prior to July 3, 1976), the initial engagement of the Apprentice Entry Artificers as well as of the Direct Entry Artificers (appellants herein) was for 10 years active service. On the expiry of this term, they could be drafted into Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years. A person who is kept in Fleet Reserve can be recalled at any time, during the said period of 10 years, to serve in the Navy.

6. The Apprentice Entry Artificers (with education qualification of Matriculation) get 4 years training in Indian Navy during which period they get a special rate of pay (fixed stipend per month). After the 4 years training period in naval establishment, the Apprentice Entry Artificers are advanced to the rank of Artificer Vth Class and their initial engagement of 10 years active service commences. At the end of it, they could also be kept in Fleet Reserve for 10 years. It may be mentioned that after one year in the rank of Artificer Vth Class, these Apprentice Entry Artificers are advanced to the rank of Artificer Acting IVth Class to complete the engagement 10 years active service. On the other hand, Direct Entry Artificers, to which class appellants belong, with qualification of 3 years Diploma in Engineering from recognized Universities in the country are directly enrolled to the rank of Artificer Acting IVth Class with initial engagement of 10 years active service. It may also be stated that in the rank of Artificer Acting IVth Class, the Apprentice Entry Artificers and Direct Entry Artificers are merged together, and are treated at par for the purposes of rank, work, promotions, pay and allowances, leave and other benefits allowed for sailors. They are all governed by the same Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. In their respective ranks, they relieve each other when transferred to ships and establishments.

7. These facts are noted, as stated by the appellants, because of the reason that the appellants are claiming that since Apprentice Entry Artificers are given the pension, after counting the 4 years training period in Naval Establishment, same treatment be given to the appellants as well. Question No. 2 framed by the AFT and referred to this Court touches upon this aspect.

8. Reverting to the facts of the appellants’ case, as pointed out above, appellant Nos. 2 to 5 were engaged as Direct Artificers for a period of 10 years. All these appellants were engaged prior to July, 1976. This is the actual service rendered by them. According to them, they were drafted into Fleet Reserve for a period of 10 years and 50% of this period have been counted for pension. On that basis, they claim that they have become entitled to receive pension. Therefore, they made a request on May 10, 2012 to the respondents to grant pension to them. However, vide reply dated June 25, 2012, respondents turned down their request as ‘not tenable in accordance with the extent rules/regulations’. The reason given by the respondents was that the appellants were not drafted into Fleet Reserve at all and, therefore, there was no reason to count 50% of the Fleet Reserve period. The respondents, in this behalf, referred to Government Order No. AD/5374/2/76/2214/S/D(N.II) dated July 3, 1976 as per which drafting into Fleet Reserve was discontinued from 1976 onwards and, therefore, the appellants were never drafted 6 into Fleet Reserve. After receiving this rejection of their request, the appellants approach the AFT in the form of O.A. which has met the fate of dismissal, as already mentioned above.

92. Reservist pension and gratuity--(1) A reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension may be granted, on completion of the prescribed naval and reserve qualifying service of ten years each, a reservist pension of rupees eleven per mensem or a gratuity of rupees nine hundred in lieu of pension. (2) A reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension and whose qualifying service is less than the period of engagement but not less than fifteen years may, on completion of the period of engagement or on earlier discharge from the serve otherwise than at his own request, be granted a reservist pension at rupees seven hundred and fifty in lieu of pension.”

(a) When an Active Service rating is within six months of completing his terms of enrolment the Commanding Officer of the ship in which he is serving is to inform the Registrar whether or not he is recommended for Fleet Reserve Service and is to endorse his Service Certificate accordingly.

20.Calculating the qualifying period for the purpose of pension and gratuity, 15 entire service from the date of enrolment or advancement to the rank of ordinary seaman or equivalent till the date of discharge is to be counted. Thus, whereas full continuous service in the Navy is to be reckoned for pension, insofar Fleet Reserve is concerned those who are drafted thereinto are entitled to count 50% of the period of Fleet Reserve as reckonable service towards pension.

28.We, thus, answer question no. 1 in the negative and hold that the appellants are not entitled to count 50% of the Fleet Reserve as they were never drafted into the said reserve. Consequently, the appellants 22 are not entitled to reservist pension. However, their cases would be considered for grant of special pension on same lines as was done in T.R. Das judgment and directed in para 36 of the said judgment. Question No. 2 - Whether the applicants Nos. 2 to 5 were entitled to be treated at par with the Apprentice Entry Artificers for pension purposes only on the ground that both of them belong to the same homogeneous class of Artificers?

31.As a consequence, this appeal stands dismissed insofar as claim for reservist pension is concerned. However, their cases for grant of special pension shall be considered as directed above.

No order as to costs.

MAY 08, 2018.