As per case facts, the Union of India appealed judgments regarding condonation of service shortfall for Defence Security Corps (DSC) personnel to receive a second pension. Appellants argued that DSC ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
2026 INSC 286 Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 1 of 31
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 27246/2023)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .…. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
BALAKRISHNAN MULLIKOTE
(EX HAV 256812 M) ..…RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO._______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 10617 /2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO._______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 38229 /2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5199 OF 202 3
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 30477 /2023)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 48314 /2023)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 1818/202 4)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27725/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11632/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32319/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32321/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 33255/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32320/2025)
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 2 of 31
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32795/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 33679/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34652/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34253/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 57276 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 58071 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 59355 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 62611/2025 )
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 58829 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 60221 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 62330 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 63679 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 64995 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 38559/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 64337 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 62372 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 65005 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 510/2026)
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 3 of 31
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 69413 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 65163 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 69726 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 70272 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 60220 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 62616 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 69755 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 69735 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 73216 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 64998 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 60026 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 73198 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 73265 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 73886 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s). 64456 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s).732 24/2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s).65002 /2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO_______ OF 202 6
(Arising out of Diary No(s).69733 /2025)
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 4 of 31
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave to appeal granted.
3. Applications for intervention / impleadment are allowed.
THE TWO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
4. The two substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this batch
of appeals are:
A. Whether the Union of India, through the Ministry of Defence, is
bound to give effect to Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations for
the Army, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension Regulations, 1961’)
and Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as
‘Pension Regulations, 2008’) respectively, as well as Note 5 appended to
the letter dated 30
th
October 1987, while determining the length of
qualifying service of personnel serving in the Defence Security Corps
(hereinafter referred to as ‘DSC’) and
B. Whether such personnel are entitled to seek condonation of
deficiency in the qualifying period of service for the purpose of pension
eligibility in accordance with Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations,
1961 and Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
5. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned Additional Solicitor General of India
stated that the present batch of matters fall into two distinct categories: one
involving a shortfall in qualifying service of less than one year and the other
involving shortfall exceeding one year. She has handed over a chart indicating
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 5 of 31
shortfall in service of each of the Respondents. The relevant portion of the said
chart is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Sl
.
N
o.
Case No
Particulars of
the individual
QS for
Regular Army/
First
Service
Date of Re-
Enrollment in DSC
Date of
Discharge from DSC
AQS for
2
nd
Service
Pension
Shortfall for
2
nd
Service
Pension
1 2 3 4
(Y/M /D)
5 6 7
(Y/M /D)
8
(Y/M /D)
1 Diary No
27246
/2023
Ex Hav
Balakrishanan
Mullikote
22/00/02 24.08.1994 31.05. 2008 13/09/08 01/02/22
2 Diary No
10617
/2018
Ex Nb Sub
Ram Chander
Disodia
19/01/18 20.09.1983 31.05.1997 13/08/11 01/03 /19
3 Diary No
38229
/2018
Ex Sep
Kanshi Ram
18/06/00 22.12.1986 29.02.2000 13/10/14 01/01/16
4 Diary No
27300
/2023
Ex Nk K
Boja Rajan
22/00/00 24.03.2006 29.02.2020 13/11/05 01/00/25
5 Diary No
30477
/2023
Ex Nk
Govindan
Kutty MC
19/01/13 22.12.1999 31.11. 2013 13/11/09 01/00/21
6 Diary No
48314
/2023
Ex Nk Daljit
Singh
24/00/02 23.04.2007 31.01.2021 13/09/08 01/02/22
7 Diary
No.1818/
2024
Ex Sub Ved
Prakash
24/00/00 26.06.1992 31.05.2006 13/11/05 01/00/25
8. SLP(C)
27725
/2024
Ex NK
Chinna
Vediyappan &
344 ors
22/00/06 08.07.2003 30.09.2017 14/02/22 00/09/08
9 SLP(C)N
o.11632/2
025
Ex Nk Babu
Ram
17/00/00 02.08.2006 30/06/2021 14/10/28 00/01/02
10 SLP(C)
No.32319
/2025
Ex Nk Shyam
Lal
24/00/00 29.02.2008 31.07.2022 14/05/03 00/06/27
11 SLP(C)
No.32321
/2025
Ex Hav Mam
Raj sharma
16/03/04 10.10.2008 29.02.2023 14/04/18 00/07/12
12 SLP(C)
No.33255
/2025
Ex Lnk Jage
Ram
15/00/29 03.01.1986 31.10.2000 14/09/28 00/02/02
13 SLP(C)
No.32320
/2025
Ex Nk
Bhaskar Jankiram
Shinde
16/01/19 22.03.2005 30.04.2019 14/01/09 00/10/21
14 SLP(C)
No.32795
/2025
Ex Nk
Ramesh
Singh
17/00/00 06.02.2006 30.11.2020 14/09/25 00/02/05
15 SLP(C)
No.33679
/2025
Ex Nk Lekh
Raj
21/04/24 10.08.2003 01.05.2016 14/10/00 00/02/00
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 6 of 31
16 SLP(C)
No.34652
/2025
Ex Nk
Santosh Kumar
Parmanik
17/00/00 30.05.2001 29.02.2016 14/07/26 00/04/04
17 SLP(C)
No.34253
/2025
Ex Nk Sher
Singh
17/07/16 11.03.2008 31.03.2022 1400/21 01/11/09
18 Diary
No.57276
/2025
Ex Sep
Randhir
17/03/03 30.04.1984 30.11.1998 14/07/27 00/04/03
19 Diary
No.58071
/2025
Ex Hav
Madan
Mohan Lal
24/00/03 07.05.2009 31.01.2024 14/08/25 00/03/05
20 Diary
No.59355
/2025
Ex Nk Bihari
Lal
19/02/24 05.11.2002 30.06.2016 13/07/29 01/04/08
21 Diary
No.62611
/25
Ex Nk Ranjit
Singha
20/00/21 11.02.2008 30.09.2022 14/07/19 00/04/03
22 Diary
No.58829
/2025
Ex Naik
Pratap Malick
20/00/14 16.03.2009 31.07.2023 14/04/16 00/07/18
23 Diary
No.60221
/2025
Ex Nk Bidhi
Chand
16/02/30 17.01.2004 30.04.2018 14/03/14 00/08/16
24 Diary
No.62330
/2025
Ex Nk Prem
Singh
19/02/13 19.03.1993 30.4.2007 14/01/12 00/10.18
25 Diary
No.63679
/2025
Ex Nk Om
Prakash
15/09.00 28.05.2005 31.08.2019 14/03/04 00/08/26
26 Diary No
64995/25
Ex Nk Bhakta
Man Gurung
22/00/17 22.09.2000 31.01.2015 14/04/09 00/07/21
27 SLP(C)
No.38559
/2025
Ex Hav.
Kirpal Singh
24/00/17 28.02.1985 30.09.1999 13/09/07 01/02/23
28 Diary
No.64337
/2025
Ex Hav Gyan
Prakash
- 25.03.2009 30.04.2023 14/00/19 00/11/11
29 Diary
No.62372
/2025
Ex NK
Satyavan
Singh
20/03/08 13.03.2007 31.01.2022 14/10.18 00/01//12
30 Diary No.
65005/20
25
Ex Nk
Karnail Singh
17/00/03 15.06.2006 31.01.2021 14/07/16 00/04/14
31 SLP(C)
No.510/2
026
Smt Madhu
Kumari
17/00/20 31.07.1996 31.07.2011 14/04/06 00/06/24
32 Diary
No.69413
/2025
Ex Hav Sita
Ram
22/00/28 03.05.1995 30.11.2009 14/06/27 00/05/03
33 Diary
No.65163
/2025
Ex Lnk
Naginder
Singh
17/10/06 24.04.2003 28.02.2017 13/10/04 01/01/26
34 Diary
No.69726
/2025
Ex Sep
Subhash
Chand
22/00/09 24.04.1997 30.04.2011 14/00/06 00/11/24
35 Diary No.
70272/20
25
Ex Nk
Baljinder
Singh
18/11/22 11.07.2007 31.01.2022 14/06/20 005/05/10
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 7 of 31
36 Diary
No.60220
/2025
Babu Ram 17/08/19 02.08.2006 31.08.2020 14/01/00 00/11/00
37 Diary
No.62616
/2025
Deepak
Sharma s/o Ex Sep
Girdhari lal
15/00/07 18.09.1983 31.10.1997 14/01/14 00/10/21
38 Diary
No.69755
/2025
Ex Nk
Thangzalam
22/09/15 03.08.2004 31.03.2019 14/07/29 00/04/06
39 Diary No
69735/20
25
Ex Nk Ishwar
Singh
18/04/08 16.08.1997 31.07.2011 13/11/20 01/00/15
40 Diary No
73216/20
25
Ex Nk
Chiman
Kimar
24/00/13 29.02.2008 31.03.2022 14/01/01 00/10/29
41 Diary No
64998/20
25
Ex Nk Ashok
Kumar
24/00/12 25.05.2007 30.06.2021 14/01/07 00/10/23
42 Diary No
60026/25
EX NK RAM
JANAM
DUBEY
24/00/15 26.03.2008 31.12.2022 14/09/06 00/02/25
43 Diary No
73198/25
EX NK
SURJIT
SINGH
20/00/12 10.09.1993 31.09.2008 14/04/21 00/07/10
44 Diary No.
73265/25
Ex Nk Kuldip
Singh
22/00/09 04.03.2008 28.02.2022 14/03/28 00/08/02
45 Diary No.
73886/25
Ex Hav
(Hony Nb Sub) Nirmal
Singh
22/00/15 24.12.1993 31.10.2007 13/10/10 01/01/22
6. Subsequently, learned ASG has handed over another chart of four other
Respondents. The said chart is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Sl.
No.
Case
No.
Name of
the
individual
Date of
Enrollment
in DSC
Date of
Discharge
from DSC
Shortfall in
second service
Duration in second
services
46 Dy No
65002/
2025
Sarup
Chand
30.05.2005 31.08.2019 271 days 14 Years 9 days
47 Dy No
69733/
2025
Suresh
Kumar
27.01.2007 31.05.2021 256 days 14 Years 109 days
48 Dy No
64456/
2025
Kishan
Chand
25.05.1999 31.01.2014 3 months 23
days
14 years 8 months 7
days
49 Dy No
73224/
2025
Paras Nath
Yadav
29.12.2007 31.10.2022 1 month 27
days
14 years 10 months
3 days
7. She submitted that at the time of re-employment in the DCS, an individual
is afforded two distinct options: (i) to continue drawing pension from the Regular
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 8 of 31
Army and retain retirement gratuity, in which case his prior service in the Regular
Army is not reckoned for pensionary benefits in the DSC or (ii) to cease drawing
pension, refund the pension already received with effect from the date of re-
employment in the DSC and have his previous service counted as qualifying
service towards the current engagement in the DSC.
8. Attention of this Court was invited to Paragraph 173 of the Pension
Regulations, 2008, which stipulates that pensionary awards to DSC personnel are
governed by the same provisions applicable to the Regular Army, save where
inconsistent with the specific provisions relating to DSC (Chapter VIII, Paragraph s
173–181). It was contended that individuals who, at the time of re-employment,
opted to continue drawing pension from the Regular Army are entitled to pension
for service rendered in the DSC under Paragraph 175(a)(i), and not under
Paragraph 47 of the Pension Regulations, which applies exclusively to personnel
of the Regular Army. The very existence of a separate provision, it was urged,
demonstrates the inconsistency contemplated in Paragraph 173, thereby excluding
the applicability of condonation of shortfall for DSC personnel under Paragraph 44
of the Pension Regulations, 2008. It was emphasised that, had Paragraph 44 been
intended to apply equally to both Regular Army and DSC personnel, there would
have been no necessity to incorporate Paragraph 175(a)(i) specifically for DSC
personnel.
9. Ms. Dave, learned ASG further pointed out that under Paragraph 47, the
qualifying service for grant of service pension to Personnel Below Officer Rank
(hereinafter, ‘PBOR’) of the Regular Army is fixed at fifteen (15) years. In
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 9 of 31
contrast, for DSC personnel, Paragraph 175(a)(i) prescribes qualifying service of
“15 years or more.” Moreover, the expression “qualifying service” in Paragraph 47
is preceded by the word “Minimum,” whereas in Paragraph 175(a)(i) it is preceded
by the word “Actual.” This distinction, it was submitted, reinforces the
inconsistency and excludes the applicability of condonation of shortfall for DSC
personnel.
10. On a holistic reading of the relevant provisions, it was contended that
condonation of shortfall in service is not available to DSC personnel for purposes
of eligibility for a second service pension. To make this exception explicit, the
Ministry of Defence, Department of Ex- Servicemen Welfare (MoD, DESW),
issued a letter dated 20
th
June 2017, categorically barring condonation of shortfall
in service for DSC personnel seeking eligibility for a second service pension. The
said letter dated 20
th
June 2017 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“No. 14(02)/2011- D(Pen/Pol)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
New Delhi
Dated 20th June 2017
To,
The Chief of the Army Staff
The Chief of the Naval Staff
The Chief of the Air Staff
Subject: Condonation of deficiency in service for grant of 2nd service pension
in respect of DSC (Defence Security Corps) personnel.
Condonation of deficiency in service for eligibility of service pension has
been mentioned in Rule 125 of Pension Regulation Part-I 1961 (Rule 44 of
Pension Regulation Part-I 2008). This rule is applicable in all cases except the
case mentioned under the Rule 125 of Pension Regulation Part-I 1961 (Rule 44
of Pension Regulation Part-I 2008). Deficiency in service for eligibility of
Service pension or Reservist pension or Gratuity in lieu may be condoned by
competent authority up to 12 month as mentioned in Gol, MoD letter No.
4684/DIR(PEN)/2001 dated 14th August 2001.
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 10 of 31
2. Representations of the ex-servicemen who have been granted Service pension
from Army side and re-employed in DSC are received for condonation of
deficiency in service for the 2nd service pension from DSC. The matter has been
examined and decided that condonation of deficiency in qualifying service is to
be accorded on merit and in the deserving cases to make individual eligible for
at least one service pension. Condonation of deficiency in qualifying service for
grant of 2nd service pension in respect of DSC personnel has no merit.
3. It is conveyed that the intention behind condonation of deficiency in service
for grant of service pension is that the individual must not be left high & dry but
should be made eligible for at least one service pension. In view of above, it is
clarified that no condonation shall be allowed for grant of second service
pension.
4. The Pension Regulation for the Army shall stand amended by inserting item
"(iv) an individual who is eligible for 2nd service pension for the service
rendered by individual in respect of DSC" below Regulation 44 of Pension
Regulation for the Army Pt-l (2008).
5. All other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged.
6. This issues with the concurrence of Finance Division of this Ministry vide
their ID No 10(16)/2016/FIN/PEN dated 26/08/2016
7. Hindi version will follow.
Yours faithfully
Sd/ -
(K.T. Lepcha)
Under Secretary to the Government of India”
11. Learned senior counsel for the Appellants submitted that, from the foregoing
provisions and clarifications, it is evident that the consistent stand of the Appellants
has been that the provision for condonation of shortfall was intended solely to
ensure that service personnel are able to secure at least one pension, the underlying
objective being that no individual should be left without pensionary support.
12. It was emphasised that all Respondents herein are already in receipt of
service pension from the Regular Army. None of them exercised the option of
counting their former service towards DSC service at the time of re‑enrolment. The
option exercised by them was final, and it was done with full knowledge that unless
they rendered the actual qualifying service of fifteen (15) years or more, as
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 11 of 31
mandated under Paragraph 175 of the Pension Regulations, 2008, they would not
be eligible for pension in respect of their service in the DSC.
13. Learned senior counsel for the Appellants further contended that the
question of whether the provision for condonation of deficiency in service should
extend to DSC personnel was examined and clarified by the Ministry of Defence,
Department of Ex‑Servicemen Welfare (MoD/DESW), on the basis of
recommendations made by an Expert Committee. The decision conveyed by the
MoD on 22
nd
March 2022 contains the following excerpts:
“1. As per Regulation 125 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, except in
the case of (a) an individual who is discharged at his own request or (b) an individual
who is eligible for special pension or gratuity under regulation 164 or (c) an
individual who is invalided out with less than 15 years of service, deficiency in
service for eligibility to service pension or reservist pension or gratuity in lieu may
be condoned by competent authority up to six months in each case.
2. As per clarification issued vide Army Hqrs letter No.83370/AG/PS(a) dated
7
th
December, 1962 and 65745/P/DSC-2 dated 3
rd
December 1992, the condonation
of deficiency under Rule 125 of Pension Regulations for Army 1961 will not be
allowed for grant of second service pension. Condonation of deficiency, under Rule
125 of Pension Regulations for Army 1961, up to six months by Officer-in-Charge
Records and up to one year are being done by Adjutant General (AG).
3. The issue was earlier considered in view of few AFT judgments wherein
directions were given for condonation of deficiency in service for the purpose of
granting 2nd service pension. It was decided in a meeting held between Secretary
(ESW) and AG on 06.02.2012 that the position would be examined and clarified.
4. CGDA to whom the matter was referred for their views/comments, had
stated that condonation of deficiency in Qualifying Service for grant of service
pension is to be granted only on merit and in deserving cases to make individual
eligible for at least one pension, however in the instant case, the individual is already
drawing pension from his 1st service therefore grant of condonation for deficiency
of service for 2nd spell has no merit. CGDA has further stated that, it is also pointed
out that prior to 6th CPC, element of weightage was not allowed to DSC personnel
for grant of 2nd pension on the analogy that no dual benefit shall be allowed on same
accord hence on similar lines the proposal for condonation deficiency in service for
grant of 2nd service pension in respect of DSC personnel has no merit.
5. It was conveyed to Service Hqrs with the approval of Secretary (ESW) vide
letter dated 23.04.2012 that the intention behind grant of condonation for deficiency
of service for grant of service pension is that the individual must not be left high &
dry but should be made eligible for at least one pension. On the principle that no
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 12 of 31
dual benefit shall be allowed on same accord, it was clarified that no condonation
shall be allowed for grant of 2nd service pension. The matter regarding condonation
of shortfall in service towards second service pension in respect of Defence Security
Corps (DSC) personnel was examined in DESW in consultation with CGDA and
MoD (Fin/Pen) and with the approval of the then Hon'ble Raksha Mantri Govt, letter
No. 14(2)/2011)/D(Pen/Pol) dated 20.07.2017 has been issued vide which it has been
clarified that condonation of deficiency in service is not applicable in the case of
second service pension for the service rendered by personnel in DSC.”
14. Ms. Dave pointed out that Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008,
if applicable, permits condonation of shortfall only up to twelve (12) months, and
contains no provision for condonation beyond that period. With respect to the
second category of cases, involving shortfall of more than one year, she contended
that the courts below erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Union of
India v. Surender Singh Parmar, (2015) 3 SCC 404. That judgment, she argued,
pertained to the grant of a first service pension and was based on provisions arising
from the Fourth Central Pay Commission (CPC) letter dated 30
th
October 1987,
which were subsequently clarified and superseded by the Fifth CPC letter dated 3
rd
February 1998, and thereafter incorporated in Paragraph 18 of the Pension
Regulations, 2008.
15. In conclusion, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the grant
of a second pension itself constitutes an additional benefit to individuals already in
receipt of a first service pension. To permit condonation of shortfall in service for
such second pension would amount to creating an exception to the general rule
mandating fifteen (15) years of qualifying service. Extending such condonation to
DSC personnel, who are required to render actual qualifying service of fifteen (15)
years or more, would amount to adding an exception upon an exception. She
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 13 of 31
contended that in no circumstances could such condonation be extended to cases
where the shortfall in service exceeds twelve (12) months.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that Paragraph s
125 and 44 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and 2008 expressly provide for
condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for Army personnel. According to
them, neither of these provisions contain any prohibition against condonation of
deficiency in qualifying service for the second spell of service rendered in the DSC.
17. They emphasised that the DSC is a branch of the Army consisting of former
personnel of the defence services wherein they are re-enrolled in the Army. DSC
personnel, being an integral part of the Indian Army, are subject to the Army Act,
1950 and governed by the applicable statutory provisions. Further, DSC personnel
are also governed by the same general pensionary rules as the Regular Army except
where there is any specific inconsistency in the provisions as provided in
Paragraphs 266 and 173 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and 2008.
18. It was further submitted that while former Army personnel who opt to join
civil government service after retirement are entitled to earn a second pension upon
rendering ten years of service, those who are encouraged to join the DSC instead
of civil employment are placed at a disadvantage. This is because DSC personnel
can earn a second pension only after completing fifteen years of service, and
condonation of shortfall is disallowed by the Union of India under its interpretation
of the Regulations.
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 14 of 31
19. They contended that although there is no express prohibition against
condonation of shortfall in the second spell of service in the DSC, the Union of
India has, from time to time, issued letters imposing such restrictions. These
prohibitory letters, they argued, have been repeatedly read down or struck down by
judicial pronouncements, yet the Union of India has continued to re-issue them in
disregard of settled law.
20. They stated that the first such prohibitory letter was, in fact, issued in the
year 1962, which was read down by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in LPA 755/2010 titled Union of India vs. LNK DSC Mani Ram
decided on 05
th
July 2010. The issue was also interpreted by the Delhi High Court
in WP(C) No.9593/2003 t itled Ex. Sep. Madan Singh vs. Union of India decided
on 31
st
August 2006. Then again, another letter was issued in the year 2012 by the
Union of India, once more trying to reintroduce the same provisions which had
been read down and interpreted, which letter was also struck down by the Principal
Bench of the AFT in OA 60/2013 titled Bhani Devi vs. Union of India decided on
07
th
November 2013. Another letter was issued by the Union of India in the year
2017 introducing a prohibition for condonation of shortfall in second spell of
service which was again struck down by the Kochi Bench of the AFT in OA
131/2017 titled Mohanan T vs. Union of India decided on 12
th
October 2017.
21. They submitted that the larger Bench of the AFT, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in Smt. Shama Kaur vs. Union of India, OA No.1238 with MA No.923 of
2016 & connected matter dated 1
st
October 2019 noted that though the stand of
the Union of India had been consistently struck down and read down, yet the Union
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 15 of 31
of India continued to issue similar prohibitory letters on the same issue from time
to time as if a struck down/read down letter could be revalidated or brought back
to life by the mere issuance of a similar letter again. The larger Bench emphasised
that a dead provision or a logic declared illegal or arbitrary could not be revived or
brought back to ‘life’ simply by issuing it again and again and that such attempts
by the Union of India were only an afterthought to ‘overrule’ judicial
pronouncements since there was no such apparent intention of the rule-makers to
prohibit such benefits in the second spell of service in the DSC which had no link
with past service and had it been so, it would have been specified or hinted at in
the original regulations in the first go or there would have been a separate
regulation for DSC when the regulations had been originally published.
22. The learned counsel for the Respondents pointed out that Paragraphs 9 and
18 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and 2008, read with the Government of India
letter dated 30
th
October 1987, provide that a fraction of a year equal to three (3)
months and above but less than six (6) months shall be treated as a completed
half-year. By application of these provisions, the Respondents’ total service is to
be reckoned as fourteen (14) years. If the one-year deficiency in qualifying service
is condoned under Paragraph 44, the total service in DSC would amount to fifteen
(15) years. Consequently, under Paragraph 47, a personnel with fifteen (15) years
of qualifying service is entitled to pension. Paragraph s 9 and 18 of the Pension
Regulations, 1961 and 2008 as well as relevant portion of the letter dated 30
th
October, 1987 are reproduced hereinbelow: -
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 16 of 31
Paragraph 9 of the Pension Regulations, 1961
“Additional benefit at half a year’s pension or gratuity in cases where the total period
of qualifying service exceeds completed years by six months or more
9. If the total period of qualifying service of an individual exceeds completed years by six
months (180 days) or more, the amount of his pension/gratuity will be increased by half
the difference between the pension/gratuity admissible for the completed years of his
qualifying service and the one admissible for the next consecutive number of complete
years.”
Paragraph 18 of the Pension Regulations, 2008
“Half a year’s pension or gratuity
18. (a) In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above but less than 6 months shall be treated as a completed one half year and reckoned as qualifying service. The period of nine months and above would, therefore, be two half years. This shall however not be applicable for completing minimum qualifying service for pensionary awards.”
Letter dated 30
th
October 1987
“
No.1(5)/87D(Pensions/Services)
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Defence/Raksha Mantralaya
New Delhi, dated the 30th October, 1987,
To
The Chief of the Army Staff
The Chief of the Naval Staff
The Chief of the Air Staff
Subject:- Implementation of the Government decisions on the recommendations of the
Fourth Central Pay Commission regarding pensionary benefits for the Armed
Forces officers and personnel below officer rank retiring or dying in harness
on or after 1.1.1986.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the Government decisions on the recommendations of
the Fourth Central Pay Commission as notified vide Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners’
Welfare Resolution No.2/13/87- PIO dated 18
th
March, 1987 and to convey the sanction
of the President to the modifications, to the extent specified in this letter, in the
rules/regulations concerning pensionary benefits of the Commissioned Officers
(including MNS and Territorial Army Officers) and personnel below officer rank
(including NCs(E) of the three Services, Defence Security Corps and the Territorial
Army) (hereinafter collectively referred to as Armed Forces personnel)…..
xxxx xxxx xxxx
5. Qualifying service
(a) The term ‘Qualifying Service’ (QS) shall mean:-
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 17 of 31
Qualifying service reckonable for
Category Pension Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity
Retiring/Service
/Invalid/Terminal
Gratuity
xxx xxx xxx
Personnel
below
officers
rank
(including
Commission
ed Officers
Actual
qualifying service
rendered by
the individual
plus a
weightage of
5 years
subject to the total qualifying service including weightage not
exceeding 33
years……..
Notes: ……….
(5) In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to
three months and above but less than 6 months shall be treated as a completed one half year and reckoned as qualifying service.”
23. Learned counsel for Respondents submitted that this Court, in Surender
Singh Parmar (supra), held that Army personnel are entitled to the benefit of
rounding off as well as condonation of shortfall in qualifying service.
24. Learned counsel for the Respondents lastly submitted that once the issue had
been repeatedly adjudicated and settled, not only on technical grounds but also on
principles of logic and multiple judgments had attained finality and been
implemented by the Appellants including by a larger Bench of the Principal Bench
of the AFT, it was wholly inappropriate for the Union of India to continue raising
the same issue time and again.
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 18 of 31
REJOINDER
25. In rejoinder, learned Additional Solicitor General stated that Paragraph s 9
and 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and 2008 respectively stipulate that a
fraction of a year equal to three months and above but less than six months shall
be treated as a completed half-year. However, she emphasised that this provision
is unambiguous in limiting its application solely to the calculation of the length of
qualifying service, and not to the completion of the minimum qualifying service
required for pension, which for DSC personnel remains fifteen (15) years or more.
In support of her submission, she relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ex Sep
Chhatar Pal vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6692 of 2019, which
she stated had considered the judgment of this Court in Union of India vs.
Surender Singh Parmar (supra) and Paragraph 9 of the Pension Regulations,
1961. The relevant portion of the judgment in Ex Sep Chhatar Pal (supra) is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“….Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the
case for relaxation of the qualifying service was duly considered pursuant to the
direction issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal. It was found that the appellant had
not completed three years consecutive period with exemplary remarks in DSC. He
earned six red ink entries due to indisciplined attitude/character. As he had completed
only 13 years and 332 days which is a period short by 79 days for 14 years service,
we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to pension.
Regulation 9 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-I) reads as
follows :
“9. If the total period of qualifying service of an individual exceeds
completed years by six moths (180 days) or more, the amount of his
pension/gratuity will be increased by half the difference between the
pension/gratuity admissible for the completed years of his qualifying
service and the one admissible for the next consecutive number of
complete years.”
It is clear from Regulation 9 that it is the qualifying service in excess of the
completed years which has been dealt with under Regulation 9. The appellant cannot
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 19 of 31
get any benefit from this Regulation as his service was only for 13 years and 332
days. So far as the judgment of this Court in Parmar’s case is concerned, the
appellant therein was voluntarily discharged from service. Therefore, the said
judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case as the discharge of the appellant
herein is not voluntary. In the instant case, the service record of the appellant was
taken into account by the respondents while reconsidering his case for relaxing the
qualifying service. We are of the considered opinion that relaxation of the period of
one year has already been granted in spite of which the appellant fell short by 79
days for completion of 14 years….”
REASONING
DSC PART OF "ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL”
26. DSC has been constituted with the primary responsibility of providing
security cover to defence installations of the three Armed Services as well as civil
establishments functioning under the Ministry of Defence. The contribution of the
three services towards DSC recruitment is 75% Ex-Army, 1% Ex. Navy/Airforce
and 24% Ex. Territorial Army. Unlike Regular Army, the employment in DSC is
contractual in nature for initial period of ten years extendable till the age of
superannuation i.e. 55 years of age based on various factors like discipline, medical
category, annual confidential reports.
27. In accordance with the Rule 187(1)(r) of the Army Rules, 1954, read with
Section 3(vi) of the Army Act, 1950, the DSC constitutes a “Corps” of the Indian
Army. Consequently, DSC personnel, together with other defence personnel, are
collectively recognised as “Armed Forces personnel” .
PENSIONARY PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO REGULAR ARMY MEN ARE
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO DSC PERSONNEL EXCEPT WHEN
‘INCONSISTENT’
28. Paragraph 266 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and Paragraph 173 of the
Pension Regulations, 2008, stipulate that the pensionary provisions applicable to
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 20 of 31
PBOR of the Regular Army shall govern pensionary awards to DSC personnel,
save where such provisions are “inconsistent” with the Regulations specifically
applicable to DSC.
29. It is a settled principle of law that provisions are said to be ‘inconsistent ’
when they are mutually contradictory to the extent that the operation of one
necessarily implies the negation of the other. In legal parlance, the term
‘inconsistent’ connotes a state of contradiction, repugnancy, or irreconcilability.
Two or more provisions are inconsistent if they cannot co-exist harmoniously, and
if their simultaneous application results in conflict, confusion, or legal uncertainty.
The judicial duty, therefor e, is to eschew a ‘head-on clash’ between provisions of
the same Regulations and, wherever possible, to adopt a construction that
harmonises apparently conflicting provisions. [See : University of Allahabad vs.
Amritchand Tripathi (1986) 4 SCC 176, Krishna Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan
(1991) 4 SCC 258, Sultana Begum vs. Premchand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373, CIT
vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57 and Afjal Imam vs. State of Bihar
(2011) 5 SCC 729].
30. Accordingly, all pensionary provisions applicable to Regular Army
personnel extend equally to DSC personnel unless they are patently contrary,
irreconcilable, contradictory, or repugnant to the DSC-specific provisions.
Paragraphs 266 of the 1961 Regulations and 173 of the 2008 Regulations are
reproduced hereinbelow:
Paragraph 266 of the Pension Regulations, 1961
“266. The grant of pensionary awards to personnel of the Defence Security Corps
shall be governed by the same general rules as are applicable to combatants of the
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 21 of 31
Army, except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of the regulations in this
chapter.”
Paragraph 173 of the Pension Regulations, 2008
“173. The grant of pensionary awards to personnel of the Defence Security Corps
shall be governed by the same Regulations as are applicable to Personnel Below Officer Rank of the Army, except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Regulations in this chapter.”
THE APPELLANTS SHALL FIRST DETERMINE THE LENGTH OF
QUALIFYING SERVICE
31. Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and 2008 as well as
the Note 5 of the letter dated 30
th
October, 1987 stipulate that in calculating the
length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above but
less than six (6) months shall be treated as a completed one half year and reckoned
as qualifying service.
32. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellants must
first determine the length of qualifying service of each of the Respondents. In
undertaking such computation, the Appellants are enjoined to give effect not only
to the relevant provisions of the Pension Regulations but also to the beneficial
stipulation contained in Note 5 of the Government of India letter dated 30
th
October
1987, which reads as follows:
“Notes: ……….
(5) In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to
three months and above but less than 6 months shall be treated as a completed one
half year and reckoned as qualifying service.”
CONDONATION OF SHORTFALL OF QUALIFYING SERVICE IS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN REGULATIONS 1961 AND 2008
33. The condonation of shortfall of qualifying service up to twelve (12) months
is specifically provided in Paragraph 125 of Pension Regulations, 1961 and
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 22 of 31
Paragraph 44 of Pension Regulations, 2008. These provisions make it clear that the
rule-makers contemplated situations where a personnel might fall short of the
prescribed qualifying service and accordingly incorporated a mechanism for
condonation. Paragraphs 125 of the 1961 Regulations and 44 of the 2008
Regulations are reproduced hereinbelow-
Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 “Condonation of deficiency in service for eligibility to service/reservist pension
125. Except in the case of –
(a) an individual who is discharged at his own request;
(b) who is eligible for special pension or gratuity under Regulation 164
or
(c) an individual who is invalided with less than 15 years of service.
deficiency in service for eligibility to service pension/reservist pension/ gratuity in
lieu may be condoned by a competent authority upto six months in each case”
Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008
“Condonation of deficiency in service for eligibility to pension/gratuity
44. The deficiency in service for eligibility to pension/gratuity may be condoned
upto 12 months in each case by competent authority except in the case of:-
(i) an individual who is discharged at his own request;
(ii) an individual who is invalided with less than 15 years of service.
(iii) who is eligible for special pension or gratuity under these Regulations.”
34. The contention advanced by the Appellants that the DSC Chapter contains
no provision analogous to Paragraphs 125 or 44 of the Pension Regulations, 1961
and 2008, which permit condonation of shortfall in service, is untenable. This
argument disregards express language of Paragraphs 266 and 173 of the Pension
Regulations, 1961 and 2008, which categorically provide that the pensionary
provisions applicable to PBOR of the Regular Army shall equally govern
pensionary entitlements of DSC personnel. By virtue of the principle of
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 23 of 31
‘incorporation by reference
1
, the pensionary provisions applicable to PBOR of the
Regular Army extend to DSC personnel, thereby entitling the Respondents to
condonation of shortfall in qualifying service under Paragraphs 125 and 44 of the
respective Regulations. Moreover, apart from making a bare assertion that
condonation under these provisions is inapplicable to DSC service, the Appellants
have failed to identify any express provision within the DSC-specific chapters that
prohibits such condonation.
NO INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN PARA 175 AND PARAS 44, 47 OF PENSION
REGULATIONS, 2008.
35. Paragraph 175(a)(i) stipulates the conditions precedent to be fulfilled for
grant of pension and prescribes the methodology for computation thereof.
Significantly, it contains no embargo or prohibition against condonation of shortfall
in qualifying service. Accordingly, this Court finds no inconsistency between
Paragraph 175 and Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008.
36. The mere existence of a separate provision for service pension in the form
of Paragraph 175 of the Pension Regulations, 2008, does not, by itself, establish
inconsistency so as to exclude the applicability of condonation of shortfall for DSC
personnel under Paragraph 44 of the Pension Regulations, 2008.
37. It is pertinent to reiterate that when a person joins DSC, he has two options,
either to get his former army service counted towards his subsequent DSC service
and take one full pension for two service spells or opt for continuance of his former
1
According to Francis Bennion Statutory Interpretation Fourth edition “It is a common device of… drafters to
incorporate earlier statutory provisions by reference, rather than setting out similar provisions in full. This saves
space, and also attracts the case law and other learning attached to the earlier provisions”.
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 24 of 31
pension, if any, and then earn separate retiral benefits from DSC without counting
his former service, in which case the subsequent service in DSC is wholly
independent and divorced from the previous army service. All cases before this
Court belong to the second category as the Respondents have not taken the benefit
of former service and individuals have been re-enrolled in DSC as a separate entity.
However, the argument that none of the Respondents opted for counting of former
service towards DSC Service at the time of re -enrolment as they knew that if they
did not render the actual qualifying service of 15 years or more as mandated under
Paragraph 175 of the Pension Regulations, 2008, they will not be eligible for
pension for the service rendered in DSC is based on presumption and assumption
and is not borne out from the explicit language of the Regulations.
38. Further, no merit attaches to the Appellants’ contention that the terminology
employed in relation to qualifying service in Paragraph 175(a)(i) and Paragraph 47
of the Pension Regulations, 2008 is different. In the opinion of this Court, such
contention amounts to mere ‘hairsplitting ’. Both Paragraph s unequivocally
stipulate that to qualify for service pension, DSC personnel must render fifteen (15)
years of service. Paragraphs 47 and 175(a)(i) of the Pension Regulations, 2008 are
reproduced herein below:
“Minimum qualifying service for service pension
47. Unless otherwise provided for, the minimum qualifying service for earning a
service pension is 15 years.
Option to continue to draw military pension
175. (a) The retired Armed Forces personnel re-employed in Defence Security Corps
and who opted under Regulation 174(b)(i) to continue to draw pension and retain
retirement gratuity including service gratuity, if any, for former service in the Armed
Forces, shall for his service with Defence Security Corps, be entitled to the following:
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 25 of 31
(i) Service Pension - In case his service in Defence Security Corps is 15 years or more,
service pension shall be calculated as per Regulation 50 for actual qualifying service
rendered in the Defence Security Corps without the element of weightage.”
39. This Court is of the view that, in the absence of any inconsistency between
the provisions for condonation and those dealing with DSC service, it is not open
to the Appellants to contend that Paragraph 125 of the 1961 Regulations and
Paragraph 44 of the 2008 Regulations, which expressly provide for condonation of
shortfall in service, are inapplicable to DSC personnel.
CONSISTENT JUDICIAL VIEW
40. This Court notes that the consistent view of the High Courts [Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Union of India v. LNK DSC Mani Ram, LPA No. 755 of
2010, decided on 5 July 2010, Delhi High Court in Ex Sep. Madan Singh v. Union
of India, W.P.(C) No.9593 of 2003, decided on 31 August 2006] as well as the
Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Smt. Shama Kaur (supra), has
been in favour of the Respondents. These judgments have held the field for long and have been accepted and implemented by the Union of India. The relevant
portion of the judgment in Smt. Shama Kaur (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
“…..there can be no scope of any doubt that DSC personnel are fully entitled to
condonation of deficiency of service for their second spell of service at par with other
Army personnel. In fact, as discussed in the main body of this judgment, DSC
personnel re-enrolling themselves by opting not to count their past military service
have no connection at all with their past service as far as pension is concerned and
their service in DSC is fresh service delinked from their past service.”
41. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Respondents are entitled to
condonation of shortfall in qualifying service up to one (1) year, in accordance with
Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 and Paragraph 44 of the Pension
Regulations, 2008 after determining the length of qualifying services in accordance
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 26 of 31
with Paragraphs 9 and 18 of the Pension Regulations, of 1961 and 2008
respectively, as well as Note 5 appended to the letter dated 30
th
October 1987.
GOVERNMENT CANNOT AMEND REGULATIONS BY WAY OF LETTERS
42. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the Pension Regulations
specifically provide for condonation of shortfall in minimum DSC service, it is not
open to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of
Ex-Servicemen Welfare (MoD/DESW), to stipulate an exception by way of
executive letters. While the Government may issue beneficial circulars/letters or
clarifications where ambiguity exists, it cannot, by administrative fiat, amend or
override clear and categorical provisions of the Regulations. As long as the
Regulation remains valid and on the ‘ statute-book’, it cannot be deemed to have
been amended by letters such as those dated 20
th
June 2017 and 22
nd
March 2022.
ISSUE OF LIMITATION
43. Since the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh,
(2008) 8 SCC 648 was not invoked during the course of arguments, this Court
refrains from examining the issue of limitation in the present matter. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that a recent coordinate Bench, in Union of India through its
Secretary & Ors. vs. SGT Girish Kumar & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 194, has
reaffirmed the settled principle that pension is neither a bounty nor an ex gratia
payment dependent upon the largesse of the State. It constitutes a deferred portion
of compensation for past service, which, upon fulfilment of the governing
conditions, matures into a vested and enforceable right. Pensionary entitlements,
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 27 of 31
therefore, partake the character of property and cannot be withheld, curtailed, or
extinguished save by authority of law. The relevant portion of the judgment passed
by the coordinate Bench in Union of India through its Secretary & Ors. vs. SGT
Girish Kumar & Ors. (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“…This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions, recognised that right to receive
disability pension is a valuable right and once found due, the benefit of the same
has to be given from the date it became due. The same cannot be curtailed by
restricting the benefit to a period of three years preceding the filing of the original
application……The reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of a two- Judge
Bench of this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is of no assistance to it, as the legal
landscape did not remain static after decision in Tarsem Singh. Subsequently, a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar (supra), decided the issue of
applicability of instruction dated 31.01.2001 and the aforesaid decision is in
rem……Thus, the objections founded on the delay and limitation are without any
merit….”
In any event, the said question of law is left open.
NO BAR ON DSC PERSONNEL EARNING SECOND SERVICE PENSION
44. The contention of the Appellants that the provision for condonation of
shortfall was intended only to ensure grant of a single defence pension is contrary
to the express language of the Regulations.
45. Indeed, during the course of hearing, both parties were ad idem that a
conjoint reading of Paragraph 6 with Paragraph 174(1)(b) of the Pension
Regulations, 2008, reveals no bar on DSC personnel earning a second service
pension. Such entitlement does not arise from the same service, post, or continuous
spell of employment, but from a distinct and independent engagement.
46. Consequently, the second spell of service in the DSC is separate and distinct
from the first spell in the Regular Army. Condonation of shortfall in DSC service
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 28 of 31
is therefore entirely consistent with the scheme of the Army Regulations and does
not create any inconsistency.
ANSWERS TO THE TWO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW
47. This Court is of the view that Union of India through the Ministry of Defence
shall determine the length of qualifying services in accordance with Paragraphs 9
and 18 of the Pension Regulations, of 1961 and 2008 respectively, as well as Note
5 appended to the letter dated 30
th
October 1987.
48. If, upon determination of the length of qualifying service, there remains a
shortfall of one year or less, the Respondents shall be entitled to seek condonation
of such deficiency for the purpose of pension eligibility, in accordance with
Paragraph 125 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 or Paragraph 44 of the Pension
Regulations, 2008. This position has already been affirmed by this Court in
Surender Singh Parmar (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows : the respondent joined the Indian
Navy on 12- 8-1971 and after rendering 13 years 10 months and 13 days' service
sought his retirement on compassionate ground upon which he was released from
service on 24-6-1985. The minimum qualifying period for pensionable service is 15
years. There is a provision in the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 for condonation
of shortfall in service, initially it was for six months and subsequently the
condonation was made permissible for one year. The respondent claimed that he
was entitled to the benefit under the said Regulations and the Government of India
Instructions dated 30- 10-1987. The appellant denied the said benefit to the
respondent vide order dated 14- 8-2001.
4. The respondent initially approached the High Court of Delhi by filing Writ
Petition (C) No. 12507 of 2004. It was pointed out before the High Court that the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court titled Gurmukh Singh v. Union of
India vide judgment dated 22- 11-2006 declared the Navy (Pension) Regulation
82(a) as null and void being ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Regulation 82(a) provided that the benefit of condonation of shortfall in
pensionable service shall not be applicable to the case in which a sailor got the
discharge from the service at his own request. It was also brought to the notice of
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 29 of 31
the High Court that similar finding was given by the Delhi High Court in the case
of the respondent in Surender Singh Parmar v. Union of India vide order dated 6-
11-2007 and that the appellant Union of India was directed to consider the case of
the respondent for the purpose of condoning the deficiency in service and pass
appropriate orders within three months.
5. The appellant opposed the said prayer on the ground that the respondent has not
completed the requisite service of 14 years upon which only one can get the benefit
of condonation of shortfall of service up to one year. Therefore, according to the
appellant, the respondent was not eligible candidate for condonation of the shortfall
in pensionable service of one year. Before the High Court the respondent contested
the statement made by the appellant that the respondent served for 13 years 8
months and 13 days and brought to the notice of the High Court that actually he
served 13 years 10 months and 13 days which was not disputed. The respondent
claimed benefit by rounding off the period of service in terms of the Government of
India Instructions dated 30- 10-1987. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
after considering the rival submissions and taking note of the Instructions dated 30-
10-1987 by the order dated 6- 11-2007 [ WP (C) No. 12507 of 2004, decided on 6-
11-2007 (Del)] set aside the appellant's earlier rejection order dated 14- 8-2001
and directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the respondent.
xxx xxx xxx
10. The note below Para 5 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence
Instructions dated 30- 10-1987 at Clause 5 provides that in calculating the length
of qualifying service fraction of a year equal to three months and above but less
than six months shall be treated as a completed one half year for reckoning
qualifying service. The said provision reads as follows:
“5.Qualifying service.—
(a)-(b)***
Notes.—(1) to (4)***
(5) In calculating the length of qualifying service fraction of a year
equal to three months and above but less than six months shall be
treated as a completed one half year and reckoned as qualifying
service.”
11. In view of the aforesaid provisions the respondent is entitled to claim total
period of service as 14 years for the purpose of calculation of pension. By the
Government of India, Ministry of Defence Order dated 14- 8-2001 administrative
power has been delegated to the competent authority. Under clause (a)(v) the
competent authority has been empowered to condone shortfall in qualifying
service for grant of pension beyond six months and up to 12 months. The said
provision reads as follows:
“(a)(v) Condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for grant of
pension in respect of PBOR beyond six months and up to 12 months.”
12. In view of the aforesaid provision, the respondent is also entitled to claim for
condonation of shortfall in qualifying service for grant of pension beyond six
months and up to 12 months. If the aforesaid power has not been exercised by the
competent authority in proper case then it was within the jurisdiction of the High
Court or Tribunal to pass appropriate order directing the authority to condone
the shortfall and to grant pension to the eligible person, which has been done in
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 30 of 31
the present case and we find no ground to interfere with the substantive finding
of the Tribunal. However as we find that the respondent was allowed to retire from
service on 24-6-1985 when the Instruction dated 14- 8-2001 was not in existence,
we hold that the respondent is entitled for such benefit from such date on which the
said Instruction came into effect. The Tribunal failed to notice the aforesaid fact but
rightly declared that the respondent's shortfall in service stands condoned.”
(emphasis supplied)
49. This Court is further of the view that the Appellants’ reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in Ex Sep. Chattar Pal (supra) is untenable in law as the
said judgment pertains to a DSC personnel who had neither sought nor was given
voluntary discharge. In Ex Sep. Chattar Pal (supra), the DSC personnel was
discharged on the ground that there were ‘six red ink entries due to in- disciplined
attitude/character’. By contrast, in the present case , all the Respondents have
sought voluntary discharge. The rationale behind the judgment in Ex Sep. Chattar
Pal (supra) is not difficult to discern. The power to condone shortfall in qualifying
service is discretionary as is apparent from the use of the expression ‘may’ in
Paragraphs 125 and 44 of Pension Regulations, 1961 and 2008. Moreover, the
judgment in Ex Sep. Chattar Pal (supra) does not overrule the judgment of this
Court in Surender Singh Parmar (supra).
50. Consequently, this Court finds that all aspects of the matters have already
been adjudicated, accepted, and implemented by the Union of India. The issue is
no longer open to doubt or reconsideration, having attained finality through
repeated judicial pronouncements and consistent application.
Civil Appeal No.____of 2026 arising out of Diary No.27246/2023 & connected matters Page 31 of 31
CONCLUSION
51. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court holds that the present Appeals are
devoid of merit. The Appeals are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………….J.
[MANOJ MISRA,J ]
………………….J.
[MANMOHAN,J ]
New Delhi;
March 24, 2026
Legal Notes
Add a Note....