Skip to content


Major Ram Dayal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeals Nos. 2764 of 1979 and 1405 of 1981
Judge
Reported in1981(3)SCALE1789; (1982)1SCC409; 1982(14)LC6(SC)
AppellantMajor Ram Dayal
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi)
Excerpt:
- [ y.v. chandrachud, c.j.,; a. varadarajan and; amarendra nath sen, jj.] -- labour and services — retirement — appellant not proved to be continuing in service — government, however, agreeing to grant him pension on the basis of completion of 20 years' service -- it says that the application of the appellant dated february 19, 1974 “stands annulled”. mr sibal says that the appellant may be allowed the facility of commutation of his pension......to sanction pension to the appellant on the basis that he had retired and not resigned from the army service. the government has accepted the suggestion and has taken the decision, as a special case, that the appellant will be paid pension with effect from june 30, 1977 on the basis that he has completed 20 years of service on that date. we read the aforesaid decision of the government of india to mean that the appellant will be entitled to pension with effect from june 30, 1977 on the basis of the salary which he would have drawn on that date, had he continued in service until then.3. mr sibal says that the appellant may be allowed the facility of commutation of his pension. we have no doubt that if the appellant makes any application in that behalf, it shall be considered by the.....
Judgment:

Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J.

1. Mr Sibal, who has thankfully assisted us as amicus curiae, has argued the appeal on merits, stressing particularly the point that the appellant must be deemed to be in service as on this date. Mr Sibal has taken us through the entire correspondence bearing on that question, amongst which are letters dated April 8, 1974, July 5, 1974, August 9, 1974, October 25, 1974, November 7, 1974 and November 23, 1974. Having considered this correspondence, we are unable to sustain the contention of Mr Sibal on the basis of anything said therein by the Army Headquarters or anything done in pursuance thereof by the Army authorities. The letter dated October 25, 1974 written by Major A.K. Jain to Army Headquarters contains a note at its foot, addressed to “151 AD Regt.”. It says that the application of the appellant dated February 19, 1974 “stands annulled”. But the noting was not intended to be communicated to the appellant and in fact was not so communicated to him. No rights, therefore, can flow in his favour from that letter or the note appended thereto.

2. The learned Attorney-General had, at our suggestion, asked the Government of India whether they would agree to sanction pension to the appellant on the basis that he had retired and not resigned from the Army service. The Government has accepted the suggestion and has taken the decision, as a special case, that the appellant will be paid pension with effect from June 30, 1977 on the basis that he has completed 20 years of service on that date. We read the aforesaid decision of the Government of India to mean that the appellant will be entitled to pension with effect from June 30, 1977 on the basis of the salary which he would have drawn on that date, had he continued in service until then.

3. Mr Sibal says that the appellant may be allowed the facility of commutation of his pension. We have no doubt that if the appellant makes any application in that behalf, it shall be considered by the authorities in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the commutation of pension. If it is permissible to relax the rules so as to give the benefit of commutation of pension to the appellant, the Army authorities should consider the feasibility of making the necessary relaxation.

4. We would like to make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled to claim any amount by way of arrears of salary between February 1974 and June 30, 1977 and the decision of the Government is not to be treated as a precedent. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //