Ex Hav Bed Ram vs UOI & Others on 26 November 2025

**O R D E R**

**26/11/2025**

**MA No 266/204**

1. The applicant has filed this MA, praying for condonation of delay of 32 years, eight months and three days in filing the OA, which will be considered alongwith the OA.

**OA No 170/2024**

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to count the service rendered by the applicant in both the spell for fixation of pension or alternatively, second pension may kindly be granted for the second spell of service rendered by the applicant. He has also prayed for grant of pension with interest @12% pa alongwith costs of application.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 11/9/1958 and was discharged from there on 27/1/1974 after serving for 15 years, four months and 16 days and was granted service pension for life. Thereafter, the applicant was re-enrolled in DSC on 08/3/1976 and was discharged from DSC service on 31/3/1991 after rendering 15 years and 23 days service. However, despite serving for more than 15 years in DSC during his second spell of service, neither the applicant was granted service pension for the service rendered in the DSC nor the said service was counted to re-fix his pension for the first spell of service. Despite repeated representations, the Respondents have not paid any heed to his request. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not negating the basic facts, the Respondents have submitted that the applicant was discharged from his first spell of service in the Rajputana Rifles on 24/1/1974 under the provisions of Army Rule 13 (3) Item III (i). He had rendered 15 years and 122 days of service (excluding 14 days Non Qualifying Service) for which he was granted service pension for life. Thereafter, the applicant was re-enrolled in DSC on 08/3/1976 and his former service pension was suspended under the provisions of Rule 267 (d) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, Part I and his former service was counted towards DSC service for the purpose of enhanced rate of pay and allowances. Thereafter, upon issuance of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter No PC to MF No A00592/DSC-2/54-C/D (GS-IV) dated 03/3/1983, the applicant was given a chance to exercise the Option for rendering willingness to continue drawing his former service pension or to discontinue the same for the sake of getting enhanced rate of pension and gratuity with service in DSC. The applicant elected to cease to draw pension and to count the former service rendered with the Rajputana Rifles towards enhanced rate. He was granted periodical extension till 04/3/1991 and was discharged from service DSC service wef 31/3/1991 under the provisions of Army Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) after rendering an aggregate qualifying service of 30 years, 4 months and 26 days, ie, 15 years and 122 days with the former service with Rajputana Rifles and 15 years and 24 days service with DSC. He was accordingly granted service pension for the aggregate period of service, Annexure R/2. Pension of the applicant was revised from time to time based on the subsequent Central Pay Commissions. In addition to the above as per policy exercising of Option for counting of former service is available only once in service which has already been opted for by the applicant and service pension granted to him accordingly. Hence, filing the OA has no substance. Since the applicant opted for counting of his former service and accordingly, granted enhanced service pension, taking into consideration both the spell of service, the applicant has no right to claim separate service pension for the service rendered in DSC and he is trying to avail double pensionary benefits by misleading the Hon'ble Tribunal. Moreover, as the OA has been filed more than 33 years from the date of discharge of the applicant from DSC service, the OA is not within the limitation period under Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and, hence, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Under the circumstances, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA with costs.

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

6. Having heard and perused the material on record, it is abundantly evident that the Applicant was granted service pension for the qualifying service of 15 years in his first spell of service with the Rajputana Rifles. Upon re-enrolling in DSC, the applicant, on his volition, had twice opted to cease to draw the pension earned by him from the first spell of service and, instead, opted to count his former service rendered in the Army to his service in DSC to enable him to get the enhanced rates of Pay and Allowances and pension and gratuity from DSC, which he earned till his retirement from DSC. After having been granted extension in service from time to time, Applicant was discharged from DSC service on 31/3/1991 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (i) of Army Rules. He had rendered an aggregate qualifying service of 30 years, four months and 26 days of service for both the spell of service and was granted Service Pension for the qualifying service. As per copy of PPO, annexed at Annexure R/3, qualifying service without weightage has been cited as 30 years, four months and 26 days.

7. In view of the foregoing and since the applicant himself volunteered to opt to count his first spell of Army service with his second spell with DSC which enabled him to earn enhanced rates of pay and allowances and pension upon his discharge from service he cannot claim the pension for his earlier service with Army. The applicant, not once but twice, opted to count his former service – first time at the time of his re-enrolment in DSC on 08/3/1976 and later on, in early 1983 in the light of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 03/3/1983, therefore, we find no merit in the plea of the applicant. Rather, it was a frivolous litigation, filed after an inordinate delay of more than three decades from the date of discharge of the applicant, ipso facto, wasting precious time of all concerned including this Tribunal. Apart from all these, we also find the statement of the applicant at Para 5 (B) of the OA that, *"neither service pension for second spell of service was granted nor service rendered by the applicant in second spell of service were*

*OA 170/2024 with MA No 266/2024 Army No 2847167H Ex Hav Bed Ram*

*counted to re-fix the pension for first spell of service'*, is not only false but weird and obfuscating. Thus, his plea for conflating both spells of service, that too, after a delay of more than 32 years was simply unwarranted. The OA is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of merit.

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

**(SANJIV MITTAL)** **MEMBER (A)**

**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)** **MEMBER (J)**

cda/-