Kuldip Singh vs Union of India on 3 November 2026

ORDER

Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma, Member (Judicial)

This Original Application has been filed for direction to respondent no. 3 to forward the case of the applicant to the competent authority for grant of service pension in view of Regulation 113 A read with Instructions dated 14.08.2001 with all consequential benefits and also to direct the respondents to take a decision on the application dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure A-3) of the applicant.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 20.06.1990 and was allotted the trade of Infantry GD. After successful training, he was inducted into Regular Army. During service, he was deployed at various places including peace and field area. He was an excellent sportsman and a great athlete, who used to run marathons and represented the organisation in number of National and International events. He participated in the cross-country competition held in the year 1993 and was awarded Gold Medal. He secured 6th place in International Marathon and brought laurels to the Nation as well as to the organisation. In Baroda Marathon, 1995 he secured 7th place. In Federation Cup,1997 he secured Gold Medal in 10,000 meter race and also participated in Sub Area Cross Country Tournament held in Dehradun and was declared as winner. (However, in this regard, no documents have been produced).

3. He was granted 15 days Part Annual Leave from 08.01.2007 to 22.01.2007 and due to unforeseen circumstances, did not join the duty and was declared deserter. He lost his mental balance and could not join the duty thereafter. He had already completed qualifying service for pension but could not join back duty due to medical reasons. Hence, the case of the applicant is exceptional and deserves sympathy as he has rendered 16 years, 03 months and 05 days of service. After being declared deserter, he was dismissed from service on 23.01.2010. He is invoking the provisions of Rule 113 (A) for grant of service pension for the rank of Havildar as he had completed qualifying service for pension under Rule 132 of the Pension Regulations for the Army whereas he was discarded from service and one offence may not take the 16 years of toil and selfless service to the Nation. He filed a petition under Regulation 113 A of the Pension Regulations for the Army for grant of service pension under exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the President of India on 28.07.2016 (Annexure A-3) and served a reminder on 17.12.016 (Annexure A-4). He received a letter dated 23.02.2017 from the Record Office that he was not eligible for service pension. As a matter of fact, Record Office is supposed to forward the record of the applicant to the competent authority for its decision (Annexure A-5). He did not receive any letter in pursuance to his petition, therefore, he had filed a RTI application dated 15.01.2018 for getting information regarding status of his petition dated 28.07.2016 (AnnexureA-6). Thereafter, the applicant received a letter dated 02.04.2018 vide which he was informed that he is neither eligible for service pension nor entitled for family pension, which is annexed (Annexure A-7) to the OA. Hence, the present Original Application.

4. The applicant has filed documents from Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-7 to the OA.

5. The respondents filed reply and admitted the fact regarding service rendered by the applicant. It is further averred by the respondents that he was granted 15 days Part Annual Leave from 08.01.2007 to 22.01.2007 and he had to report to his Unit on 22.01.2007 but he did not report. Accordingly, he was declared as a case of over stayal leave w.e.f. 23.01.2007. The applicant did not report back to 2 Punjab Battalion NCC Jalandhar for continuous 30 days and he was declared deserter w.e.f. 22.01.2007 and an apprehension roll was issued to the Civil Authorities vide 2 Punjab Battalion NCC Jalandhar City letter dated 28.02.2007 (Annexure R-1) in accordance with Section 106 of the Army Act (Annexure R-2) read in conjuction with Army Rule 183 ( Annexure R-3) vide 2 Punjab Battalion NCC Jalandhar Part-II Order no. 0/0017/001/07.

6. After expiry of three years, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 23.01.2010 under Section 20 (3) of the Army Act ( Annexure R-4) vide Records the Sikh Regiment Part-II Order No.1/NER/0091/011/2010. After lapse of eight years from the date of his dismissal from service, he has filed this Original Application for grant of service pension.

7. As per Paras 376 to 381 (Annexure R-5) of Regulations for the Army (Revised Edition 1987), there was no embargo/ restrictions on such deserter from joining the Unit. However, disciplinary actions/proceedings under Section 39 (b) of the Army Act are required to be initiated against such deserter upon his joining. It has also been submitted that as per Rule 41(a ) ( Annexure R-6) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, Part-I “ an individual, who is dismissed under the provisions of Army Act, 1950 or removed under the Rules made thereunder as a measure of penalty, will be ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service.”

8. After lapse of more than six years from the date of dismissal, he had submitted Petition dated 28.07.2016 ( Annexure A-3) and reminder thereof on 17.12.2016 ( Annexure A-4) to the Hon’ble President of India, which was also against the provisions contained in Para 368 ( Annexure R-7) of the Regulations for the Army. However, on the directions of IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 13.04.2018, facts of the case were apprised to him vide Records Sikh Regiment letter dated 23.02.2017. As the applicant was dismissed from service w.e.f. 23.01.2010 under Section 20 (3) of the Army Act (Annexure R-8) due to non- reporting to his Unit for continuous period of three years from the date of desertion, no provision exists for his reinstatement into service and also due to his dismissal from service, service pension and gratuity for his previous service rendered by him, are not admissible to him in accordance with Rule 41 (a) ( Annexure R-6) of the Pension Regulations for the Army,2008, Part-I.

9. In view of the above, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

10. The respondents have also opposed the Original Application on the ground of law of limitation that after a lapse of 11 years from the date of desertion and after a lapse of 08 years from the date of dismissal, the applicant has approached this Tribunal, hence, the Original Application is badly barred by limitation under Limitation Act and the same is not maintainable as per Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

11. The respondents have referred the case of Sub Basti Ram vs. Union of India in OA No. 160/2011 decided by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi on 12.05.2011, which was dismissed on account of filing Original Application at a belated stage. Further the respondents have relied upon judgment passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur in TA No. 112/2009, Munshi Singh Vs. Union of India and others, which was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches of four years. The respondents have also relied on Judgment in P S Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu of the Supreme Court and Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. & another Vs. V K Thangappan & another, in which Hon’ble Apex Court had held that delay or latches is one of the factor which is to be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to the respondents, there was no ground available to the applicant not to come back and join the service.

On the basis of above averments, respondents have requested for dismissal of the Original Application.

13. The applicant has relied on the following judgments:-

(a) OA 2290/ 2013, Jaspal Singh Vs. Union of India, decided on 05.04.22019 by this Tribunal and affirmed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP 24398/2021, JASPAL Singh Vs. Union of India and others.

(b) OA 967 /2013, Subhash Chand Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 22.01.2018 by AFT, Regional Bench, Chandigarh.

(c) TA 657/2010 (arising out of CrWP 868/2009, Raj Bihari Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 11.10.2022 by AFT, Regional Bench, Chandigarh and OA (Appeal) 1075/2016, Sandeep Thapa Vs. Union of India & others, decided on 20.04.2022 by AFT, Regional Bench, Chandigarh.

14. Contrary to that, respondents have relied on the judgment dated 07.02.2019 passed by AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow in TA 22/2016, Lance Naik S F W L Lal Chand Ram vs. Union of India & others and OA 73/2016, Gnr Hukam Chand Vs. Union of India & others, decided on 13.09.2022 by AFT, Regional Bench, Lucknow.

15. Heard and perused the file.

It is very much clear from the record that the applicant was granted 15 days Part Annual Leave w.e.f. 08.01.2007 to 22.01.2007 and he had to report back to his Unit on 22.01.2007 but failed to do so. Accordingly, Apprehension Roll was issued to Civil Authorities by 2 Punjab Battalion NCC Jalandhar City vide their letter dated 28.02.2007. The applicant did not report back to 2 Punjab Battalion NCC Jalandhar for continuous 30 days and was declared deserter w.e.f. 22.01.2007. Court of Inquiry was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the Army Act read in conjuction with Army Rule 183 vide 2 Punjab Battalion NCC Jalandhar Part-II Order no. 0/0017/001/07. After expiry of three years, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 23.01.2010 under Section 20 (3) of the Army Act (Annexure R-4) vide Records the Sikh Regiment Part-II Order No.1/NER/0091/011/2010.

17. As per Paras 376 to 381 (Annexure R-5) of Regulations for the Army (Revised Edition 1987), there was no embargo/ restrictions on such deserter from joining the Unit. However, disciplinary actions/proceedings under Section 39 (b) of the Army Act are required to be initiated against such deserter upon his joining. Further, Rule 41(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, Part-I provides that “ an individual, who is dismissed under the provisions of Army Act, 1950 or removed under the Rules made thereunder as a measure of penalty, will be ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service.”

18. After lapse of more than six years from the date of dismissal, the applicant had submitted Petition dated 28.07.2016 before Hon’ble President of India, which was also against the provisions contained in Para 368 ( Annexure R-7) of the Regulations for the Army. However, on the directions of IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 13.04.2018, the applicant was informed by the Records of Sikh Regiment vide letter dated 23.02.2017 that as the applicant was dismissed from service w.e.f. 23.01.2010 under Section 20 (3) of the Army Act due to non- reporting to his Unit for continuous period of three years from the date of desertion and no provision exists for his reinstatement into service and also due to his dismissal from service, service pension and gratuity for his previous service rendered by him, are not admissible to him in accordance with Rule 41

(a) (Annexure R-6) of the Pension Regulations for the Army,2008, Part-I.

19. In view of the above factual and legal position, we hardly find any ground to interfere with the well- reasoned order passed by the respondents especially when the applicant has exhausted all remedies available to him upto the level of Hon’ble President of India.

20. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed being devoid of merit as well as on the ground of limitation because he has filed the present Original Application after a lapse of 11 years from the date of desertion and after a lapse of 08 years from the date of dismissal.

No order as to costs.

(Air Marshal Manavendra Singh)

(Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma) Member (A)

Member (J) Tuesday, 3rd November, 2026 AKS

Reportable or Not