Hony Nb Sub Ramesh Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 19 August 2025

O R D E R

19.08.2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant MACP-III benefits to the Applicant wef 26.08.2006 and, accordingly, pay pension and pensionary benefits along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. The brief facts as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 26.08.1982 and after serving for 24 years and six days of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.08.2006 for which he has been granted Service Pension for life wef 01.09.2006. On completion of 24 years of service, the Applicant is eligible for grant of MACP-III benefits wef 26.08.2006, however, the Respondents have not granted the same to the Applicant. The Applicant made representations but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents filed a detailed reply to the Application. While not disputing the basic facts represented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that while serving with 307 Medium Regiment, the Applicant was granted 14 days Casual Leave from 20.10.1998 to 02.11.1998 and on completion of the aforesaid leave, he failed to rejoin duty and overstayed leave (OSL) without sufficient cause and voluntarily rejoined on 02.12.1998 (FN). As per policy in vogue, the entire spell of both Casual Leave and the Over Staying Leave period, ie., from 20.10.1998 to 01.12.1998 (43 days) is to be treated as absence from duty. On perusal of records it seems that the Applicant was not blamed for the disciplinary grounds and, accordingly, the OSL period was regularized, wherein period from 03.11.1998 to 01.12.1998 (29 days) has been regularized by the unit only as leave debitable against Annual Leave for the year 1999. However, the remaining OSL period from 20.10.1998 to 02.11.1998 (14 days) has not been regularized by the unit before his proceeding on discharge and the same shall be counted as Non-Qualifying Service (NQS). The Applicant has a total of 17 days of NQS, ie., 20.10.1998 to 02.11.1998 and 3 days from 16.06.2004 to 18.06.2004 on account of excess leave. Therefore, 17 days period is to be treated as NQS, which will not be counted towards grant of pensionary benefits in accordance with Paragraph 122 (a) (iii) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). After deduction of NQS, the total qualifying service of the Applicant for grant of pensionary benefits is 23 years, 11 months and 19 days only. Therefore, the Applicant has a shortfall of 11 days of service to complete 24 years of physical service for grant of MACP- III benefits. Apart from the above, it has been observed that during the preparation of LPC-cum-data sheet for notification of PPO, NQS period on account of OSL from 20.10.1998 to 02.11.1998 was erroneously overlooked. As a result, the Applicant has been granted Service Pension wef 01.09.2006 vide PPO dt 04.07.2007 for qualifying service of 24 years and 3 days instead of 23 years, 11 months and 19 days and case for amendment of qualifying service to 23 years, 11 months and 19 days has already been initiated and on receipt of audit report, the same shall be processed with PCDA (P) for adjudication and notification of Corrigendum PPO. Moreover, as per para 122 (a) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1) any period of absence without leave which is regularized as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) without pay and allowance is still treated as NQS. Therefore, even after regularization of the aforesaid period, it would not meet the purpose, ie., to meet the qualifying service criteria of 24 years for grant of MACP-III. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. The matter has been examined. It is not in dispute that the Applicant does not meet the qualifying criteria of 24 years of service for grant of MACP- III benefit. Moreover, it is a matter of fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dt 28.04.2021 in the case of UOI Vs RK Sharma & Ors has overturned the judgment dt 08.12.2017 in Civil Appeal No 3744/2016 in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Balbir Singh Turn and has held that the MACP Scheme would be implemented wef 01.09.2008 and not 01.01.2006 as was ruled earlier. Consequent to that, IHQ of MoD (Army) vide their letter No C/90028/Dirns/Inf-9 dt 23.05.2023 has issued instructions as to how to implement the MACP Scheme in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of RK Sharma (Supra). Hence, the Applicant is not entitled to the benefits of MACPS as he was discharged prior to date of implementation of MACPS wef 01.09.2008.

5. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Respondents may be directed to reconsider the case of the Applicant for grant of MACP-III benefits after condonation of shortfall of service. Learned Counsel for the Respondents did not raise any objection if the case is remanded back to the Respondents for their reconsideration.

6. There is, however, no provision to condone the shortfall of qualifying service for grant of MACP and such a prayer is rejected.

7. Still, taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Respondents to reconsider the case of the Applicant for grant of MACP-III benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order in accordance with extant rules/regulations and policies and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RK Sharma (Supra) and IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dt 23.05.2023. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant.

8. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

9. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-