Smt Prem Kanwar wdo Late Sep Chhatarsal Singh vs UOI & Others on 10 March 2026

O R D E R

10.03.2026

MA No 16/2024

1. The Applicant, who is the widow of late Sep Chhattarsal Singh, has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of 53 years and two months involved in filing the OA. The matter of condonation of delay in filing the OA would be considered alongwith the main OA.

OA No 07/2024

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying with the following prayers :-

(a) To admit and allow the present OA by quashing or setting aside the Impugned Order dated 30/10/2004, letters dated 16/3/2019 and 04/9/2023 and that the applicant be granted Life time Arrears of Reservist Pension of her late husband wef 25/10/1968 to 29/10/2012 and thereafter, Ordinary Family Pension to the applicant wef 30/10/2012 for life.

(b) To issue or pass an order or directions to the Respondents :-

(i) Additional pension to the applicant as she is 83 years of age.

(ii) Arrears accruing with 18% interest per annum in favour of the applicant.

(iii) Issue PPO to the applicant and make the payment in a time bound manner.

(iv) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may think just and proper may be granted to the applicant.

(c) Cost of the case may also be awarded in favour of the applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the husband of the applicant was enrolled in the Army (Army Ordnance Corps) as a Sepoy Driver on 05/8/1953 and after serving for seven years and eight months’ Colour service, he was transferred to Reserve service wef 01/4/1961. Husband of the applicant reported for service during emergency on 14/9/1963. On completion of three months and 16 days of service, he was transferred to Reserve on 01/1/1964. Thereafter, he was never recalled for duty. Husband of the applicant was discharged from service wef 24/10/1968 after completing 15 years, three months and 13 days of combined colour service of eight years and ten days and seven years, three months and 13 days Reserve service. It is important to note that the husband of the applicant was recommended for employment through the Employment Exchange by the Respondent No 2. However, he was not granted Reservist Pension even after completing qualifying service of 15 years. Further, on 28/1/1982, the Respondents No 2 had requested the husband of the applicant to collect his Reservist Kit since he was discharged from service. However, despite all concerted efforts, husband of the applicant was not granted Reservist Pension as entitled to him. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

4. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and at first submitted that the husband of the applicant had never raised any representation for grant of Service Pension till his demise on 11/10/2012. Further, service documents in respect of husband of the applicant have already been destroyed in accordance with rules on retention of such documents and certain minimal information is available in the Long Roll. Only after a delay of 36 years, the applicant’s husband approached the Record Office vide a Legal Notice dated 05/10/2004, praying for grant of Reservist Pension and lifetime arrears thereof to him. The Legal Notice was suitably replied to by the Record Office on 30/10/2004. Thereafter, another legal notice dated 14/2/2019, ie, after a gap of 15 years and 7 years after the death of the husband of the applicant was sent by the applicant praying for LTA in respect of Reservist Pension for her husband, he having expired on 29/10/2012 and thereafter family pension in her favour wef 29/10/2012. It was also suitably replied to by the Respondents. Moreover, the applicant filed the present OA after a delay of 56 years from the date of purported discharge of the husband of the applicant and, hence, the OA deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself in accordance with Sections 21 & 22 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 being devoid of merit and substance. The Respondents have further submitted that without prejudice to preliminary objections raised by the Respondents with regard to maintainability of the OA, the service documents in respect of the late husband of the applicant have already been weeded out in the year 1995 in terms of Para 592 to 595 of Regulations for the Army 1987 (Revised Edition) on expiry of its mandatory retention period of 25 years. As per the details entered in the Long Roll, the deceased soldier was enrolled in the Army on 05/8/1953 and after having rendered 7 years, 08 months and 24 days qualifying service, he was transferred to Reservist

Establishment wef 01/4/1961. Army Ordnance Corps forwarded Personal Clothing voucher to the husband of the applicant during his reservist period for re-joining training. However, he failed to report for refresher training and, hence, he was declared as a Deserter wef 02/11/1963. In accordance with the existing policy, the husband of the applicant was dismissed from service wef 24/10/1968 vide AOC Records Part II Order No 72/6/Res/Estt/1968. Therefore, late husband of the applicant is not eligible for grant of Reservist Pension.

5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. It is evident from the record that the husband of the applicant was enrolled in Army Ordnance Corps on 05/8/1953 and after rendering seven years, eight months and 24 days of service, he was transferred to Reservist Establishment wef 01/4/1961. During this Reserve period, husband of the applicant was directed to report for refresher training by dispatching his personal clothing voucher, but he failed to report to the unit as directed. Accordingly, he was declared a Deserter wef 02/11/1963. Consequent to his being declared a deserter, husband of the applicant was dismissed from service wef 24/10/1968. He died on 11/10/2012. It is prudent to observe that the husband of the applicant during his lifetime from the date of his desertion wef 02/11/1963 till 04/10/2004 remained contented with his status of being a deserter and had never, even once raised the issue of grant of reservist pension or any other relief to him with the Record Office or any competent authority. Only on 05/10/2004, ie, after an inordinate delay of more than four decades did the husband of the applicant approach the Record Office with a Legal Notice dated 05/10/2004 sent through his counsel for grant of service pension which had suitably been replied to. He never raised the issue thereafter till he expired on 11/10/2012.

7. During the course of hearing, Counsel for the applicant was asked to place on record the original discharge book purported to have been issued to the late husband of the applicant as it was stated in OA that he rejoined service on 14/9/1963 and was discharged on 01/1/1964, as per a copy of the discharge book filed with the OA. Perusal of the same reveals that the late husband of the applicant was enrolled on 05/8/1953 and was transferred to Reserve establishment on 01/4/1961 with a Non qualifying service of 30 days. He had rendered 7 years and 235 days of service in Colour. While the Respondents have unequivocally stated that the late husband of the applicant was a deserter and was accordingly dismissed from service wef 24/10/1968 because of his being a deserter wef 02/11/1963, the entry made on the last page of the discharge book placed on record by the counsel for the applicant shows the reserve service of seven years, three months and 14 days and thereafter his rejoining on 14/10/1963 and transfer to Reserve on 01/1/1964 thereby making the combined service of 15 years, two months and 15 days of late husband of the applicant. This entry on a loose sheet attached with the Discharge Book appears to be tempered with to suit the requirement of the applicant in earning relief at this belated stage which cannot be taken at its face value, its veracity being highly doubtful. Moreover, it has been observed that the sheet of paper attached in the original discharge book shows the transfer of the husband of the applicant to Reserve on 01/1/1964 but the same certificate was issued much before ie, 09/10/1963. How can it be possible that he was transferred to Reserve wef 01/1/1964 and this entry was made on 09/10/1963. Further, the ink pen which has been used to show date of reporting is clearly different from other entries in this sheet of paper. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, this particular entry of the late husband of the applicant making him having rendered fifteen years colour and reserve service, with which the counsel for the applicant vehemently argued for grant of Reservist Pension to the late husband of the applicant and, thereafter, grant Family Pension to the applicant, lacks cogency and is not beyond reproach. Therefore, we find that the OA filed after an inordinate delay of more than five decades from the date of dismissal of the late husband of the applicant and the case for Reservist Pension being made out on papers which have been forged to gain undue benefits lacks merits. Since the late husband of the applicant was a deserter and was dismissed from service being a deserter, he is clearly not eligible for grant of reservist pension and, consequently, the applicant is also not eligible for grant of any relief for grant of Family Pension in terms of extant rules/policy on the subject.

8. Apart from the above, we also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than five decades with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and it does not deserves to be entertained. For this reason, the Application by the Applicant is totally misconceived. In view of the above and in the light of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining &Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it is held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits, the instant case cannot be entertained. The case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, in Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

9. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant and the OA is dismissed.

10. No order on costs.

11. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J) cda/-