Shri Govind Singh So Late Smt Phool Bai wdo Late HavCook Pooran Singh vs UOI & Others on 26 September 2025

O R D E R

26.09.2025

Facts of the Case

1. The Original Applicant, Smt Phool Bai, claiming to be widow of Late Pooran Singh had filed SB CWP No 7277/2007 before Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur for grant of Mustering Out Pension for the lifetime of her husband and thereafter Family Pension to the Applicant for life. Upon establishment of this Tribunal, the case was transferred to this Tribunal vide Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Order dt 21.11.2013 and registered with Tribunal as TA No 22/2013. During the pendency of the case, the Original Applicant, Smt Phool Bai expired on 16.11.2016 and Shri Govind Singh, Son of the Original Applicant was taken on record as LR vide this Tribunal Order dt 15.05.2023 subject to verification of facts and filing of objections, if any, by the Respondents.

2. The brief facts of the caseas enunciated by the Original Applicant are that the Original Applicant’s husband was enrolled in Alwar Jay Paltan (Rajasthan State Forces) on 05.08.1942. While in Service, he participated in

World War-II and served overseas with MEF from 15.09.1942 to 03.12.1945 which works out to be 3 years and two months. Consequent to reduction in Establishment, he was discharged from Service after rendering 8 years, 9 months and 10 days of service on 15.05.1951. The Applicant submits that in terms of Ministry of Defence letter dt 21.04.1951, the services rendered Ex State in field service areas shall be counted double for purpose of pension and gratuity under the respective State Forces Rules. Since Late Hav/Cook Pooran Singh had rendered 3 years and 2 months service Ex State in Field Area from 15.09.1942 to 03.12.1945 and after counting it as double service, his total service comes to 11 years, 11 months and 10 days (8 year, 9 months, 10 days Regular Service and 3 years and 2 months Ex State Service) in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence Order dt 30.04.1951 as circulated vide HQ Rajasthan State Forces, Jaipur letter No 3/164/G(R) dt 24 May 1951/ 04 July 1951, thereby making him eligible for grant of Mustering Out Pension. The Original Applicant submits that in terms of Rule 316 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1940 her husband was entitled for grant of Mustering Out Pension. The Applicant, being a rustic villager was unaware of the changed policy entitling him for grant of Mustering Out Pension, did not approach the Competent Authority for grant of Mustering Out Pension during his lifetime and died on 26.02.1998. Further, the Respondents are duty bound to identify such cases which fall within the parameters of policy directives and grant benefits to the due beneficiaries, which the Respondents failed to do. After death of her husband, the Original Applicant made representations and also issued Legal Notice to the Respondents for grant of Mustering Out Pension for lifetime of her husband and thereafter Family Pension to her for life in terms of the changed policies, but to no avail. The Original Applicant has submitted that the similarly placed personnel, ie., No 7322 Sep Ajeet Singh of 2nd Jodhpur Infantry and No 4740 Ex Sep Kan Singh of Rajput Regt have been granted Mustering Out Pension vide PPO Nos 666 M dt 31.01.51 and PPO No 3033 respectively. In support of her claim, the Original Applicant has also placed reliance on Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur judgment dt 20.07.2005 in SB CWP No 7760/2003in the case of Sep Ram Kanwar Singh Vs UOI & Ors(Annexure A/6) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur judgment in the case of Smt

Sajjan Kanwar Vs UOI & Ors, RLW2005(2)RAJ1179, 2005(3)WLC152 and submitted that the similarly placed persons have been granted Mustering Out Pension after counting Ex State Service as double for grant of pensionary purpose. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has also placed reliance on this Tribunal Order dt 29.05.2013 in TA No 298/2010 in the case of Smt Uchhab Kanwar Vs UOI & Orsand reiterated that after counting Ex State Service, the total Service rendered in the Army by the husband of the Original Applicantcomes more than 10 years and, hence, her husband was eligible for grant of Mustering Out Pension during his lifetime and, consequently, after death of her husband, she is eligible for grant of Family Pension for life.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply and have raised preliminary objections on the grounds that the Civil Writ Petition has been filed after more than 56 years of delay without any justifiable reasons, therefore, the same has to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Respondents have further submitted that the Service documents of the Applicant have been destroyed after expiry of its mandatory retention period. However, as per the Long Roll maintained by the Respondents, No-2579 Late Ex Hav/Cook Pooran Singh was enrolled in Rajasthan State Force (Alwar Jay Paltan) on 05.08.1942 and after rendering 8 years, 9 months and 10 days of service, he was discharged from Service on 15.05.1951. During his service, he might have served overseas but the same cannot be verified due to non-availability of service documents at this belated stage. Further, as per available records, Late Ex Hav/Cook Pooran Singh had nominated his father, Shri Bhanwar Singh, as NOK and the changed status of NOK was not communicated to the Respondents by her husband during his lifetime, ie., till his death on 26.02.1998 or by the Original Applicant. Late Ex Hav/Cook Pooran Singh was paid Deferred Pay of Rs 31.37, War Service Gratuity of Rs 82.37 and Mustering Out Gratuity of Rs. 690/-, as he opted for the same. Since he had not rendered minimum qualifying service of 15 years for grant of Service Pension, he was not granted Service Pension as per rules in vogue at that time and, consequently, the Applicant is also not eligible for grant of Family Pension in terms of Rule 212, Note (ii) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1).

4. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The Applicant has mainly relied on this Tribunal Order dt 29.05.2013 in TA No 298/2010 in the case of Smt Uchhab Kanwar Vs UOI & Ors and Govt of India letter dt 21.04.1951 and submitted that the services rendered Ex State in field service areas shall be counted as double for the purpose of pension and gratuity under the respective State Forces Rules. Further, since Late Hav/Cook Pooran Singh had rendered 3 years and 2 months service Ex State in Field Area from 15.09.1942 to 03.12.1945 and after counting it as double service, his total service comes to 11 years, 11 months and 10 days (8 year, 9 months, 10 days Regular Service and 3 years and 2 months Ex State Service) in terms of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence Order dt 30.04.1951 as circulated vide HQ Rajasthan State Forces, Jaipur letter No 3/164/G(R) dt 24 May 1951/ 04 July 1951, thereby making him eligible for grant of Mustering Out Pension.

Per Hon’ble Mr Justice Goverdhar Bardhar, Member (J)

5. Rule 316 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1940 reads as under:- “316. Viceroy’s Commissioned Officer and Other Ranks of the Indian Army and similar rank holding combatant status in ancillary services, including Reservist.

The Governor General may, at his discretion, sanction the grant of mustering out pension and gratuity to the individuals of above categories in the following circumstances: - (a) Discharge on account of disbandment of a unit and consequent elimination of its reserve.

(b) Discharge on account of reduction of establishment.

(c) Discharge on becoming unsuitable for retention owing to change of class composition, provided that the individual cannot be absorbed in another unit.

(d) In any other circumstances approved by the Governor General.”

6. With regard to mustering out concession to the personnel of State Forces, Govt of India, Ministry of Finance letter 125EC dt 17.08.1950 reads as under:-

“In para 3 of annexure to Ministry of Defence letter No F.142/50/3482/D-1(a) dt 18th May 50, it has been laid down that all service with counts for pension and gratuity under the rule of the State concerned will count for pension and gratuity under the mustering out concessions. It has been brought to our notice that in certain States, the State Govt have authorized that service overseas or in a field service area will count as double for purposes of pension. It is pointed out that this concession should be allowed only where the individual retires under the State Rules and is NOT to be taken into account in calculating mustering out concessions sanctioned in the letter quoted above.”

7. Relevant extracts of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No F.142/50/4109/D(GS) dt 30.04.1951 reads as under:- “I am directed to state that it has been brought to the notice of this Ministry that in some States service Ex-State in a field service area counts as double for the purpose of qualifying service for pension under the State Rules and it has been represented that this concession should also be allowed in calculating the mustering out concessions of the personnel of the State Forces, who have been or are being discharged on the grounds of reorganization of the State Forces consequent on Federal Financial Integration. The President is pleased to decide as follows:- (a) Officers. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(b) JCOs and ORs. In view of the liberalization of mustering out concessions as granted in this Ministry’s letter No 142/50/1458/S/D(GS) dated 21 April 1951, the concession of double service cannot be extended to these personnel in addition. Where, however, an individual elects the option to receive mustering out concessions under the normal SF Rule, he will be entitled to count his service rendered Ex-State in a field service area as double for purposes of pension/gratuity, if admissible, under the State Rules.

8. A case of similar nature was decided by this Tribunal on 02.06.2011 in TA No 90/2010 in the case of Smt Samad Kanwar Vs UOI & Ors, wherein applicability of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No F.142/50/4109/D(GS) dt 30.04.1951 has been dealt with, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “7. It is clear from the aforesaid letter that mustering out pension was as concession given to the people, who were released from service prematurely due to reduction of strength of the force and under such circumstances, the services rendered for the purpose of mustering out pension had been reduced to 10 years. However, the concession of counting the services rendered abroad as double was applicable only for grant of pension/gratuity if the same was admissible under the State Rules. Thus, from the letter quoted above, it is clear that minimum physical service, which was required to have been rendered for the purpose of grant of any pension was ten years. No pension could be granted, in case, the individual had not rendered minimum ten years of service.

8. In the instant case, the applicant’s husband was enrolled in the Army on 19.8.1939 and was discharged from service on 4.6.1946 and thus, he put in less than 8 years of service, which was well below the minimum 10 years service required for grant of mustering out pension. The applicant’s late husband was accordingly granted gratuity as admissible under the Rules.

9. Consequently, the Transfer Application fails and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”

9. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Smt Sajjan Kanwar (Supra), the petitioner prayed for pension/ mustering out pension during his lifetime which was declined on 13.12.1945 and representation against the Order dated 13.12.1945 was also dismissed on 12.3.1947. Thus, on facts, it is distinguishable in the present case. Further, the case of Uchhab Kanwar (Supra) relied upon by the Applicant is distinguishable as in that the Applicant’s husband was discharged from service at his own request after rendering more than ten years of service whereas in the present case, the Original Applicant’s husband had rendered only 8 years, 9 months and 10 days of service.

Per Hon’ble Mr Sanjiv Mittal, Member (A)

10. Rule 316 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1940 reads as under:- “316. Viceroy’s Commissioned Officer and Other Ranks of the Indian Army and similar rank holding combatant status in ancillary services, including Reservist.

The Governor General may, at his discretion, sanction the grant of mustering out pension and gratuity to the individuals of above categories in the following circumstances: - (a) Discharge on account of disbandment of a unit and consequent elimination of its reserve.

(b) Discharge on account of reduction of establishment.

(c) Discharge on becoming unsuitable for retention owing to change of class composition, provided that the individual cannot be absorbed in another unit.

(d) In any other circumstances approved by the Governor General.”

11. Relevant extracts of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No F.142/50/4109/D(GS) dt 30.04.1951 reads as under:- “I am directed to state that it has been brought to the notice of this Ministry that in some States service ex-State in a field service area counts as double for the purpose of qualifying service for pension under the State Rules and it has been represented that this concession should also be allowed in calculating the mustering out concessions of the personnel of the State Forces who have been or are being discharged on grounds of reorganization of the State Forces consequent on Federal Financial Integration. The President is pleased to decide as follows:- (a) Officers. xx x

(b) JCOs/OR - In view of the liberalization of mustering out concessions as granted in this Ministry’s letter No 142/50/1458/S/D(GS) dt 21 April 1951, the concession of double service cannot be extended to these personnel in addition. Where, however, an individual elects the option to receive mustering out concessions under the normal SF Rule, he will be entitled to count his services rendered ex-State in a field service area as double for the purposes of pension/ gratuity, if admissible under the State Rules.”

12. Perusal of original copy of “Certificate of Service” placed on record by the Applicant and copy of “Long Roll” produced by the Respondents reveals that Late Ex Hav/Cook Pooran Singh was enrolled in Alwar Jay Paltan on 05.08.1942 and after rendering 8 years, 9 months and 10 days of service, he was discharged from Service on 15.05.1951. He had served with unit in MEF in World War-II and was awarded 1939-45 Star, Africa Star, Italy Star, War Medal, Indian Independence Medal and Defence Medal. As per the Original Discharge Certificate, Late Hav/Cook Pooran Singh was Released by Order No 97 of 01.03.1951 issued by HQ Bikaner Brigade in consequence of reduction of Establishment. As per Long Roll, Late Hav Pooran Singh was paid Deferred Pay of Rs. 31.37, War Service Gratuity of Rs. 82.37 and Mustering Out Gratuity of Rs. 690/- which shows that all dues as admissible to him upon discharge were paid. After death of Late Ex Hav/Cook Pooran Singh, the Original Applicant, Smt Phool Bai was issued Widow Card No 1997 dt 08.06.98 by Zila Kalyan Adhikari, Alwar. It is not known on what basis, the Widow Card was issued by the said Zila Kalyan Adhikari, Alwar as no documents of her marriage with the deceased soldier were placed on record by the Applicant. In the Reply Statement, the Respondents have conceded that Late Ex Hav/Cook Pooran Singh was paid War Service Gratuity of Rs 82.37, though the exact duration of his participation in World War II overseas is not mentioned in the Original Certificate of Service produced by the Applicant. Also in the Long Roll, produced by the Respondents, there has been no mention of his overseas deployment and the duration thereof. As such the total service done by the Applicant’s husband remains to be 8 years, 9 months and 10 days, as it is incumbent on the part of the Applicant to establish the period of overseas deployment of her husband, which she has failed to place on record.

13. Further, keeping in view the fact that the Respondents have made objections on the grounds that the name of the Applicant is not found recorded in the Long Roll maintained by them and the Original Applicant, Late Smt Phool Bai, had placed nothing on record establishing her to be the legally wedded wife of Late Ex Hav/Cook Pooran Singh, there is no locus standi of the Original Applicant for claiming Family Pension in this case. Now, the Original Applicant has also died on 16.11.2016. As such, no directions can be given to prove that she was legally wedded wife of the late soldier at this belated stage. Since, the Original Applicant had failed to establish her identity as the legally wedded wife of the deceased soldier during her lifetime, the Application submitted by Shri Govind Singh S/o Late Smt Phool Bai as her Legal Heir to pursue this TA is also rejected. It is also evident that the deceased soldier never raised the issue of grant of Mustering Out Pension as he had already received Mustering Out Gratuity and other dues as per his entitlement at the time of discharge from service to his satisfaction and he had no grievances thereafter.

14. Moreover, the Original CWP was filed after an inordinate and inexplicable delay of more than 56 years after discharge of her husband and 9 years after the death of the soldier. Therefore, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr.,(2008) 10 SCC 115, which held that a stale claim cannot be permitted to be revived. Persons who slept over his right is not entitled for any indulgence. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Inderpal Singh Vs UOI & Orsin Civil Writ Petition 8524/2000 decided on 04.08.2004, held that the petitioner who himself was not interested in pursuing the matter and kept silent for 11 years, hence delay cannot be condoned. Hence, the instant TA suffers from gross delay and latches and this TA cannot be entertained at this late stage.

Conclusion

15. In view of the above discussion, since the Original Applicant’s husband was discharged from Service after rendering 8 years, 9 months and 10 days of service, which is below minimum 10 years for grant of mustering out pension, he was not eligible for grant of Mustering Out pension and, consequently, the Original Applicant, who has since expired, was also not eligible for grant of Family Pension.

16. In-fine, the TA is devoid of merit on all counts and, hence, is dismissed.

17. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-