UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR on 7 November 2019

78

[2019] 14 S.C.R. 78

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 14 S.C.R.

A

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

v.

V. R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR

(Civil Appeal Nos. 4714-4715 of 2012)

BNOVEMBER 07, 2019

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 – Regulations 78, 101,101A, 101B, 105B & 107 – Grant of service element of disabilitypension when released on account of completion of engagementCbut, not qualifying service for pension – Applicant, in low medicalcategory since 1970, was discharged after completion of 10 years,169 days of service but, did not complete the qualifying service of15 years for pension in terms of Regulation 78 – Granted disabilitypension @50% on account of suffering from Viral Myocarditis postDdischarge, but was denied the benefit of service element of disabilitypension –Tribunal held the applicant entitled to full disabilitypension including the service element – Held: In terms ofRegulations, individuals who are invalided out of service on accountof disability for the reason that no alternative employment suitableto their low medical category or an individual who at the time of hisErelease under the Release Regulations is in lower medical category,are entitled to disability pension – Clause 1 & 2 of Regulation 105B,relied by the appellants, are applicable to sailors who dischargedfrom service on completion of the period of engagement and haveearned only service gratuity in terms of Clause (3) of the saidFRegulation– Clause 1 pertains to the grant of service pension inaddition to the disability element– Therefore, in terms of Clause 3,service element would be payable to an individual who has beenpaid service gratuity –Purpose of Regulation 105B is to excludedual payment of the service element of disability pension, when anindividual is entitled to service pension as well – Regulation 105BGhas not used the expression ‘on completion of qualifying service’ –Interpretation as argued by the appellants leads to addition of wordsin Regulation 105B which is not permissible as the Regulations haveto be interpreted harmoniously and not by adding words to it– Aperson who has completed the period of engagement is entitled toH

disability element apart from service pension – Expression ‘servicepension’ admissible is not restricted to the qualifying service providedu/Regulation 78 – Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation105B when no such qualification is provided in Regulation 105B –Interpretation advancing the object of the grant of disability needsto be accepted being beneficial provision for class of individualswho suffered disability in the course of duty – Regulation 107 dealswith quantification of disability pension in the cases of an individual,who has not completed qualification service– In cases where thedisability was suffered while flying or parachute jumping, theminimum service pension is appropriate to his rank and group butin all other cases, the service pension is restricted to minimum oftwo-thirds of the minimum service pension –For such reason, thedisability element would be in addition to the service pension bycumulative reading of Regulation 78, Regulation 105B andRegulation 107 – Service pension to be assessed on the basis of theminimum service pension laid down for an able individual of thesame group in Regulation 107 –Appellants to pay the arrears ofservice element in terms of directions of the Tribunal– Interpretationof Statutes – Rules of – Harmonious Construction; Casus Omissus –Service Law.

Interpretation of Statutes – Rules of – HarmoniousConstruction – Held: Court should construct the provisionsharmoniously having regard to the context and the object of thestatute in which a provision appears, to make it meaningful – Anattempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions,so as to advance the remedy intended by the statute.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 The disability pension has two elements:disability element and the service element. The disability elementis in relation to the extent of disability suffered by an individualwhereas the service element is to be granted keeping in view ofrules and regulations. Service pension and service element aresynonymous. The expression service element is used in the caseof payment of disability pension whereas, service pension is usedfor the pension payable on account of services rendered. No meritfound in the argument that as per Clause (1) of Regulation 105B,Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964, the service element is AB

CD

E

F

GH

80SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aadmissible only if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) Thatdischarge was on account of disability attributable to or aggravatedby Naval Service. (ii) The individual is entitled to service pensiononly on completion of 15 years of service in terms of Regulation78. In terms of Regulation 101A of the Regulations, an individualwho is placed in lower medical category and is discharged becauseBno alternative employment suitable to his low medical categoryand an individual who at the time of his release under the ReleaseRegulations is in a lower medical category than that in which hewas recruited will be treated as invalided from service in termsof Clause 2 of Appendix V of the Regulations. Therefore, in termsCof such Regulations, individuals who are invalided out of serviceon account of disability for the reason that no alternativeemployment suitable to their low medical category or an individualwho at the time of his release under the Release Regulations isin a lower medical category, are entitled to disability pension.[Paras 11, 13 and 14] [88-E’ F-H; 89-A-C]D1.2 Clause 1 and 2 of Regulation 105B are applicable tosailors who are discharged from service on completion of theperiod of engagement and who have earned only a service gratuityin terms of Clause (3) of the said Regulation. Clause 1 pertain tothe grant of service pension in addition to the disability element.ETherefore, in terms of Clause 3, service element would be payableto an individual who has been paid service gratuity. The purposeof the Regulation 105B is to exclude dual payment of the serviceelement of disability pension, when an individual is entitled toservice pension as well. In the absence of such Regulation, anFindividual would be entitled to disability pension including theservice pension. Therefore, the service element cannot begranted again as part of disability pension. It is to avoid thepayment of service element twice over. The Regulation 105Bhas not used the expression ‘on completion of qualifying service’.The interpretation as argued by the learned ASG leads to additionGof words in Regulation 105B which is not permissible as theRegulations have to be interpreted harmoniously and not byadding words to the Regulations. A person who has completedthe period of engagement is entitled to disability element apart from service pension. The expression ‘service pension’admissible is not restricted to the qualifying service providedunder Regulation 78. It is not for the Courts to remedy the defectin the Statute. [Paras 15, 16] [89-D-H]

1.3 By judicial interpretation, words cannot be added to astatute, which would include the Rules, Regulations andInstructions issued under a Statute, as an excuse to give effectto its plain meaning of the language of the regulations. If thelegislature has left a lacuna, it is not open to the Court to fill it onsome presumed intention of the legislature. But where the Courtsfind that the words appear to have been accidentally omitted, orif adopting a construction deprives certain existing words of allmeaning, it is permissible to supply additional words but shouldnot easily read words which have not been expressly enacted.The Court should construct the provisions harmoniously havingregard to the context and the object of the statute in which aprovision appears, to make it meaningful. An attempt must alwaysbe made so to reconcile the relevant provisions, so as to advancethe remedy intended by the statute. Thus, it is not possible toread completion of qualifying service in Regulation 105B of theRegulations. In view of the principles of interpretation relatingto Casus Omissus, a reading of the Regulations does not lead toan inference that the service element should be limited to anindividual who has completed minimum 15 years of engagement.Regulation 78 cannot be read into Regulation 105B when no suchqualification is provided in Regulation 105B. Still further, theRegulation 107 providing service element in the event of anindividual who has not completed the qualifying service willbecome otiose. A reading of all the regulations harmoniously andkeeping in view the object of grant of disability pension, theinterpretation which advances the object and purpose of the grantof disability needs to be accepted being a beneficial provision fora class of individuals who have suffered disability in the course ofduty. The quantification of disability pension in the cases of anindividual, who has not completed qualification service is dealtwith in Regulation 107. Sub-clause (b) comes into play wherethe individual has not rendered sufficient service to qualify for A

BCD

E

FG

Aservice pension. In cases where the disability was suffered whileflying or parachute jumping, the minimum service pension isappropriate to his rank and group but in all other cases, the servicepension is restricted to minimum of two-thirds of the minimumservice pension. For such reason, the disability element wouldbe in addition to the service pension by cumulative reading ofBRegulation 78, Regulation 105B and Regulation 107 of theRegulations. The service pension is to be assessed on the basisof the minimum service pension laid down for an able individualof the same group in Regulation 107 of the Regulations. Theappellants shall pay the arrears of service element preferablyCwithin a period of four months from today in terms of directionsissued by the Tribunal. [Paras 18-21and 23] [92-F-H; 93-A-G;94-C]

T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2017) 4 SCC218 : [2016] 6 SCR 541– distinguished.

DNalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar AIR 1953SC 148 : [1953] SCR 533 ; Petroleum and Natural GasRegulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Limited & Ors.(2015) 9 SCC 209 : [2015] 7 SCR 215 – relied on.

Bhola Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2010)E15 SCC 126 – referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4714-4715 of 2012.

G

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2010 and 12.04.2011of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi in T.A. No. 84 of 2010 and in I.A.No. 205 of 2010 in T.A. No. 84 of 2010.

Madhavi Divan, ASG, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., SachinSharma, Akshay Amritanshu, Arvind Kr. Sharma, B. V. Balaram Das,HAdvs. for the Appellants.

Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, M.V. Rama, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeals is to the orders passed bythe Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi[1] on 26[th] October,2010 and April 12, 2011 holding that the respondent[2] is entitled to serviceelement of disability pension from the date of discharge.

2. The facts in brief are that the applicant was discharged on 30[th]June, 1978 after completion of 10 years and 169 days of service. Hewas in low medical category since 1970. He was granted disabilitypension @50% on account of suffering from Viral Myocarditis postdischarge, but the applicant was denied the benefit of service element ofdisability pension. It is the denial of this service element which led theapplicant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

3. The stand of the appellants before the Tribunal was that theapplicant is not entitled to service element of disability pension as hewas released on expiry of engagement before completion of pensionablequalifying service of 15 years and was not invalided out of service onaccount of disability, though he has been paid service gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity.

4. The learned Tribunal relied upon Regulation 101 of Navy(Pension) Regulations, 1964[3] to hold that since applicant has been invalidedfrom service on account of disability, therefore, he is entitled to fulldisability pension including the service element. The reliance was alsoplaced upon Regulation 107 of the Regulations which contemplates thatwhere the individual has not rendered sufficient service to qualify forservice pension, the personnel will be entitled to proportion of the minimumservice pension appropriate to the individual’s ranks and group. It is thesaid order passed by the Tribunal which is the subject matter of challengein the present appeals.

5. Ms. Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellantsargued that the applicant was not boarded out of service on account of 1 for short, ‘Tribunal’

2 hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant’

3 for short, ‘Regulations’

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adisability but on account of completion of the engagement. The learnedASG traced the history of the grant of disability pension. It is submittedthat disability pension was initially granted when a member of the ArmedForces could not be retained in the Force on account of disability,attributed to or aggravated by military service. Such course was creatinghardship to the personnel boarded out on account of injury suffered dueBto military service. Therefore, the concept of disability pension wasintroduced. The disability pension has two components i.e. service elementand the disability element. The disability element is related to disabilitywhereas; the service element is to be granted as per the rules andregulations applicable. The qualification service for earning pension isC15 years; therefore, an individual who has not rendered 15 years ofqualifying service and was not boarded out on account of disability is notentitled to service element of pension.

6. It is argued that Regulation 105B of the Regulations would beapplicable if an individual is not invalided out of service on account ofDdisability and has not opted for continuation in the Armed Forces. Thesaid Regulation provides that on completion of period of engagement,apart from service pension admissible which is on completion of 15 yearsof service, a disability element is also granted.

7. It is argued that initially, the Regulations contemplated 10 yearsEof engagement with another 10 years as reservist. Therefore, an individualwould not be entitled to pension merely upon completion of 10 years ofactive service but would become entitled to service pension uponcompletion of 15 years of service including 5 years as reservist. It isargued that such situation has undergone change when on 3[rd] July, 1976,the Government of India contemplated 10 years as initial period ofFengagement, with the option of re-engagement of the existing sailors oncompletion of 10 years of engagement. It is argued that the period ofengagement in case of the applicant was 10 years approximately,therefore, he has not completed the qualifying service of 15 years interms of Regulation 78 of the Regulations. Thus, he is not entitled toGservice element as the same is payable only after completion of 15 yearsother than to an individual who is boarded out from service on accountof disability. The reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court reportedas T.S. Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.[4]wherein, the Court heldas under:H4 (2017) 4 SCC 218

“29. As aforesaid, on introducing the new policy on 3-7-1976, theFleet Reserve was discontinued and instead the Sailors in serviceat the relevant time were given an option to continue in activeservice for a further term of 5 years. Some of the Sailors opted tocontinue till completion of 15 years, who, then became eligible for“service pension” having qualifying service.

30. The quintessence for grant of reservist pension, as perRegulation 92, is completion of the prescribed Naval and Reservequalifying service of 10 years “each”. Merely upon completion of10 years of active service as a Sailor or for that matter continuedbeyond that period, but falling short of 15 years or qualifyingReserve Service, the Sailor concerned cannot claim benefit underRegulation 92 for grant of reservist pension. For, to qualify for thereservist pension, he must be drafted to the Fleet Reserve Servicefor a period of 10 years. In terms of Regulation 6 of the IndianFleet Reserve Regulations, there can be no claim to join the FleetReserve as a matter of right. None of the applicants were draftedto the Fleet Reserve Service after completion of their activeservice. Hence, the applicants before the Tribunal, could not haveclaimed the relief of reservist pension. …”

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant supportedthe order of the Tribunal to contend that Regulation 105B of theRegulations was introduced to clarify that the benefit of disability elementwho has completed the period of engagement shall be in addition to theservice pension. The provision was to grant benefit and not to deny thebenefit of the service element. It was inserted to avoid payment ofservice element twice i.e. as part of disability pension and again as servicepension. In respect of an individual who has either been invalided out ofservice or has completed less than 15 years of qualifying service forpension, the disability pension including service element is computableand payable in terms of Regulation 107 of the Regulations. SuchRegulation deals with an individual who has not rendered sufficient serviceto qualify for service pension. The service element is granted inproportion to the minimum service pension appropriate to an individual’srank and group, in which the number of his completed years of qualifyingservice bears to 15, but in no case less than two-thirds of the minimumservice pension. Such Regulation would be rendered otiose, if theargument of the appellants is to be accepted.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

9. The relevant clauses from the pension Regulation read as under:“78. Minimum qualifying service for pension. - Unless otherwiseprovided, the minimum service which qualifies for service pensionis fifteen years.

xx

xxxx

101. Conditions for the grant of disability pension. – Unlessotherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be grantedto a person who is invalided from service on account of a disabilitywhich is attributable to or aggravated by service and is assessedat twenty per cent, or over.

101A. Individuals discharged on account of their being permanentlyin low medical category. – Individuals who are placed in a lowermedical category (other than ‘E’) permanently and who aredischarged because no alternative employment suitable to theirlow medical category could be provided shall be deemed to havebeen invalided from service for the purpose of the Rules laid downin Appendix V of these Regulations.

101B. Reservists discharged on account of being placed in a lowmedical category. – (1) A reservist who is placed permanently ina lower medical category (other than ‘E’) and is discharged fromthe Fleet Reserve on that account will be deemed to have beeninvalided out of service for the purpose of the rules laid down inAppendix ‘V’ of these regulations.

(2) An individual who is found to be ineligible for the grant ofdisability pension shall be paid service gratuity as admissible underregulation 89.

xx

xx

105B. Disability at the time of discharge. – (1) A sailor, who isdischarged from service after he has completed the period of hisengagement and is, at the time of discharge found to be sufferingfrom a disability attributable to or aggravated by naval servicemay at the discretion of the competent authority be granted inaddition to the service pension admissible, a disability element asif he has been discharged on account of that disability.

xx

xx

xx

(3) The provisions in sub-regulations (1) and (2) shall also applyto sailors discharged from service on completion of the period oftheir engagement and who have earned only a service gratuity.

A

xx

xxxx

107. Amount of disability pension. – In cases where the accepteddegree of disablement is twenty per cent, or over, the monthlyrates of disability pension consisting of service and disabilityelements, shall be as follows, namely:

B

C

D

G

Provided that for the purpose of this clause, service renderedbefore the age of seventeen years shall be treated as qualifyingservice.

Explanation. – The service element shall be assessed –

(i) in the case of ordinary seaman or equivalent, on the basis of H

A

the minimum service pension laid down for able seaman orequivalent of the same group.

xx

xxxx

Appendix V – Nature, Assessment and Attributability of Disabilityand Entitlement to Disability Pension.

B

1. xx

xx

xx

2. Invalidment from service is a necessary condition for the grantof disability pension. An individual who at the time of his releaseunder the Release Regulations is in a lower medical categorythan that in which he was recruited will be treated as invalidedCfrom service. Sailors who are placed permanently in a medicalcategory other than ‘A’ and are discharged because no alternativeemployment suitable to their low medical category can be providedas well as those who having been retained in alternativeemployment but are discharged before the completion of theirDengagement will be deemed to have bene invalided out of service.”

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find nomerit in the present appeals.

11. The disability pension has two elements: disability elementand the service element. The disability element is in relation to theEextent of disability suffered by an individual whereas the service elementis to be granted keeping in view of rules and regulations. Service pensionand service element are synonymous. The expression service elementis used in the case of payment of disability pension whereas, servicepension is used for the pension payable on account of services rendered.

F

12. In the present case, we are concerned with the situation wherethe individual has completed his period of engagement in the low medicalcategory but not the qualifying service for pension in terms of Regulation78 of the Regulations. The question is whether the applicant is entitledto service element of disability pension corresponding to the number ofGyears he has put in the service of Navy.

13. We do not find any merit in the argument that as per Clause(1) of Regulation 105B, the service element is admissible only if thefollowing conditions are satisfied:

H

(i) That discharge was on account of disability attributable to oraggravated by Naval Service.

(ii) The individual is entitled to service pension only on completionof 15 years of service in terms of Regulation 78.

14. In terms of Regulation 101A of the Regulations, an individualwho is placed in lower medical category and is discharged because noalternative employment suitable to his low medical category and anindividual who at the time of his release under the Release Regulationsis in a lower medical category than that in which he was recruited willbe treated as invalided from service in terms of Clause 2 of Appendix Vof the Regulations. Therefore, in terms of such Regulations, individualswho are invalided out of service on account of disability for the reasonthat no alternative employment suitable to their low medical category oran individual who at the time of his release under the Release Regulationsis in a lower medical category, are entitled to disability pension.

15. Clause 1 and 2 of Regulation 105B are applicable to sailorswho are discharged from service on completion of the period ofengagement and who have earned only a service gratuity in terms ofClause (3) of the said Regulation. Clause 1 pertain to the grant of servicepension in addition to the disability element. Therefore, in terms of Clause3, service element would be payable to an individual who has been paidservice gratuity.

16. We find that the purpose of the Regulation 105B is to excludedual payment of the service element of disability pension, when anindividual is entitled to service pension as well. In the absence of suchRegulation, an individual would be entitled to disability pension includingthe service pension. Therefore, the service element cannot be grantedagain as part of disability pension. It is to avoid the payment of serviceelement twice over. The Regulation 105B has not used the expression‘on completion of qualifying service’. The interpretation as argued bythe learned ASG leads to addition of words in Regulation 105B which isnot permissible as the Regulations have to be interpreted harmoniouslyand not by adding words to the Regulations. A person who has completedthe period of engagement is entitled to disability element apart fromservice pension. The expression ‘service pension’ admissible is notrestricted to the qualifying service provided under Regulation 78. It isnot for the Courts to remedy the defect in the Statute. The reference A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amay be made to an early judgment of this Court reported as NalinakhyaBysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar[5], wherein it was held as under:-

“9. …It must always be borne in mind, as said by Lord Halsburyin Commissioner for Special Purposes of IncomeTax v. Pemsel [LR (1891) AC 531 at p 549], that it is not competentBto any court to proceed upon the assumption that the legislaturehas made a mistake. The Court must proceed on the footing thatthe legislature intended what it has said. Even if there is somedefect in the phraseology used by the legislature the court cannot,as pointed out in Crawford v. Spooner [6 Moo PC 1: 4 MIA 179], aid the legislature’s defective phrasing of an Act or add andCamend or, by construction, make up deficiencies which are left inthe Act. Even where there is a casus omissus, it is, as said byLord Russell of Killowen in Hansraj Gupta v. OfficialLiquidator of Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co.,Ltd. [(1933) LR 60 IA 13; AIR (1933) PC 63] , for others thanDthe courts to remedy the defect. In our view it is not right to giveto the word “decree” a meaning other than its ordinary acceptedmeaning and we are bound to say, in spite of our profound respectfor the opinions of the learned Judges who decided them, that theseveral cases relied on by the respondent were not correctlydecided.”E17. In another judgment reported as Petroleum and Natural GasRegulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Limited & Ors.[6], this Courtheld:

“35. After so stating the Court has referred to the observationsFmade by Lord Diplock in Duport Steels Ltd. [Duport SteelsLtd. v. Sirs, (1980) 1 WLR 142 : (1980) 1 All ER 529 (HL)] whereinit has been ruled thus: (All ER p. 541h-j)

“… the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining fromthe words that Parliament has approved as expressing itsGintention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it.Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain andunambiguous it is not for the Judges to invent fanciedambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its 5 AIR 1953 SC 148H6 (2015) 9 SCC 209

plain meaning because they themselves consider that theconsequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or evenunjust or immoral. In controversial matters such as areinvolved in industrial relations there is room for differences ofopinion as to what is expedient, what is just and what is morallyjustifiable. Under our Constitution it is Parliament’s opinion onthese matters that is paramount.”

(emphasis supplied)

36. Recently, in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio VascularDiseases [(2014) 2 SCC 62 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 721] , whileinterpreting Section 468 CrPC, the Court has opined: (SCC p. 99,para 45)

“45. It is argued that a legislative casus omissus cannot besupplied by judicial interpretation. It is submitted that to readSection 468 CrPC to mean that the period of limitation as periodwithin which a complaint/charge-sheet is to be filed, wouldamount to adding words to Sections 467 and 468. It is furthersubmitted that if the legislature has left a lacuna, it is not opento the court to fill it on some presumed intention of thelegislature. Reliance is placed on Shiv Shakti Coop. HousingSociety [Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. SwarajDevelopers, (2003) 6 SCC 659] , Bharat Aluminium [(2012)9 SCC 552 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 810] and several otherjudgments of this Court where doctrine of casus omissus isdiscussed. In our opinion, there is no scope for application ofdoctrine of casus omissus to this case. It is not possible to holdthat the legislature has omitted to incorporate something whichthis Court is trying to supply. The primary purpose ofconstruction of the statute is to ascertain the intention of thelegislature and then give effect to that intention. Afterascertaining the legislative intention as reflected in the Forty-second Report of the Law Commission and the Report of theJPC, this Court is only harmoniously construing the provisionsof Chapter XXXVI along with other relevant provisions of theCriminal Procedure Code to give effect to the legislative intentand to ensure that its interpretation does not lead to anyabsurdity. It is not possible to say that the legislature has kepta lacuna which we are trying to fill up by judicial interpretative AB

C

DEFGH

A

process so as to encroach upon the domain of the legislature.The authorities cited on doctrine of casus omissus are, therefore,not relevant for the present case.”

xx

xxxx

38. We must take note of certain situations where the Court inorder to reconcile the relevant provision has supplied words andthe exercise has been done to advance the remedy intended bythe statute. In Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India [(1991) 2SCC 87] , a three-Judge Bench perceiving the anomaly, held: (SCCp. 98, para 19)

B

C

“19. True it is not permissible to read words in a statute whichare not there, but ‘where the alternative lies between eithersupplying by implication words which appear to have beenaccidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprivescertain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supplythe words’ (Craies Statute Law, 7th Edn., p. 109). Similar arethe observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. MohanLal Sowcar [(1988) 2 SCC 513 at pp. 524-25] where it wasobserved that the court construing a provision should not easilyread into it words which have not been expressly enacted buthaving regard to the context in which a provision appears andthe object of the statute in which the said provision is enactedthe court should construe it in a harmonious way to make itmeaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcilethe relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended bythe statute. (See Siraj-ul-Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Boardof Waqf [AIR 1959 SC 198 : 1959 SCR 1287].)”

D

E

F

D

E

F

18. It, thus, transpires that by judicial interpretation, words cannotbe added to a statute, which would include the Rules, Regulations andInstructions issued under a Statute, as an excuse to give effect to itsplain meaning of the language of the regulations. If the legislature hasGleft a lacuna, it is not open to the Court to fill it on some presumedintention of the legislature. But where the Courts find that the wordsappear to have been accidentally omitted, or if adopting a constructiondeprives certain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supplyadditional words but should not easily read words which have not beenexpressly enacted. The Court should construct the provisionsHharmoniously having regard to the context and the object of the statute in which a provision appears, to make it meaningful. An attempt mustalways be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions, so as to advancethe remedy intended by the statute. Thus, it is not possible to readcompletion of qualifying service in Regulation 105B of the Regulations.

19. In view of the principles of interpretation relating to CasusOmissus, we find that a reading of the Regulations does not lead to aninference that the service element should be limited to an individual whohas completed minimum 15 years of engagement. Regulation 78 cannotbe read into Regulation 105B when no such qualification is provided inRegulation 105B.

20. Still further, the Regulation 107 providing service element inthe event of an individual who has not completed the qualifying servicewill become otiose. A reading of all the regulations harmoniously andkeeping in view the object of grant of disability pension, we find that theinterpretation which advances the object and purpose of the grant ofdisability needs to be accepted being a beneficial provision for a class ofindividuals who have suffered disability in the course of duty.

21. The quantification of disability pension in the cases of anindividual, who has not completed qualification service is dealt with inRegulation 107. Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Regulation 107 dealswith the situation where the individual has rendered sufficient service toqualify for a service pension i.e. 15 years of service in terms of Regulation78. However, sub-clause (b) comes into play where the individual hasnot rendered sufficient service to qualify for service pension. In caseswhere the disability was suffered while flying or parachute jumping, theminimum service pension is appropriate to his rank and group but in allother cases, the service pension is restricted to minimum of two-thirdsof the minimum service pension. For such reason, the disability elementwould be in addition to the service pension by cumulative reading ofRegulation 78, Regulation 105B and Regulation 107 of the Regulations.The service pension is to be assessed on the basis of the minimum servicepension laid down for an able individual of the same group in Regulation107 of the Regulations.

22. Learned counsel for the appellants refers to an order passedby this Court in Bhola Singh v. Union of India & Ors.[7]. We find thatthis Court has not referred to Regulation 105B as well as Regulation 107

7 Civil Appeal No. 4486 of 2002 decided on 10th August, 2010.

A

B

CD

E

F

G

Aof the Regulations to maintain an order of the High Court to deny serviceelement of pension to an individual who has completed the initial fixedperiod of 10 years. Since the appeal has been decided without anyreference to statutory regulations, we find that the reliance of theappellants on the said order is not helpful to the arguments advanced.We find that the reliance on the judgment of this court T.S. Das is notBtenable for the reason that it was not the case of grant of disabilitypension. It was the case of grant of special pension.